Lindbergh v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Lindbergh v. State

568 So. 2d 425, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 312, 1990 WL 93271

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 11, 1990

Docket6 Div. 697

StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 425 (Lindbergh v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lindbergh v. State, 568 So. 2d 425, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 312, 1990 WL 93271 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

ON REMAND FROM ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause was remanded on the authority of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). The appellant’s argument that his indictment was not sufficiently particular is without merit, as the indictment contained all the elements of the offense charged and was sufficient to apprise the appellant of the charges against him. His argument that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence is without merit, as ample evidence was presented to satisfy each of the elements of theft of property in the first degree. Moreover, his argument that the weight of the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict is waived, as he failed to cite any legal authority to support his argument. Johnson v. State, 500 So.2d 494 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur except BOWEN, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part with opinion.

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

ON REMAND FROM ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause was remanded on the authority of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). The appellant’s argument that his indictment was not sufficiently particular is without merit, as the indictment contained all the elements of the offense charged and was sufficient to apprise the appellant of the charges against him. His argument that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence is without merit, as ample evidence was presented to satisfy each of the elements of theft of property in the first degree. Moreover, his argument that the weight of the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict is waived, as he failed to cite any legal authority to support his argument. Johnson v. State, 500 So.2d 494 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur except BOWEN, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 425, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 312, 1990 WL 93271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindbergh-v-state-alacrimapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack