Leonard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Leonard v. State

110 So. 694, 21 Ala. App. 610, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 351

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 1926

Docket6 Div. 64.

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 694 (Leonard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leonard v. State, 110 So. 694, 21 Ala. App. 610, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 351 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of violating the prohibition law and was duly sentenced to perform hard labor for the county. Prom the judgment of conviction, he appealed. -

No questions are presented for the consideration of this court, except the record proper, as no exceptions were reserved pending the trial. No special charges were requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not presented, as the affirmative charge was not requested. However, such request, if made, would, of necessity, have been denied, as the evidence was in conflict and presented a jury question.

The insistence here made by counsel for appellant that the judgment contained in this record was insufficient, as such, is wholly without merit. The judgment meets every requirement of law, .and the record proper, as a whole, is regular and without error. The judgment of the circuit court, from which this appeal was taken, is affirmed.

Alfinned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of violating the prohibition law and was duly sentenced to perform hard labor for the county. Prom the judgment of conviction, he appealed. -

No questions are presented for the consideration of this court, except the record proper, as no exceptions were reserved pending the trial. No special charges were requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not presented, as the affirmative charge was not requested. However, such request, if made, would, of necessity, have been denied, as the evidence was in conflict and presented a jury question.

The insistence here made by counsel for appellant that the judgment contained in this record was insufficient, as such, is wholly without merit. The judgment meets every requirement of law, .and the record proper, as a whole, is regular and without error. The judgment of the circuit court, from which this appeal was taken, is affirmed.

Alfinned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 694, 21 Ala. App. 610, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-state-alactapp-1926.