Lynn v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lynn v. State

106 So. 347, 214 Ala. 77, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 525

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 25, 1925

Docket6 Div. 465.

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 347 (Lynn v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lynn v. State, 106 So. 347, 214 Ala. 77, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 525 (Ala. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Without committing this court to all that appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the majority of this court consisting of ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., are of opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeals should not be here revised upon the finding of error without injury in this cause, and on this ground the writ is denied.

Justices SAYRE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN are of opinion that the evidence commented upon by state’s counsel was erroneously admitted, over defendant’s objection and exception, and that the argument of the solicitor transcended the rule, and that the writ should be granted.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur. SAYRE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Without committing this court to all that appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the majority of this court consisting of ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., are of opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeals should not be here revised upon the finding of error without injury in this cause, and on this ground the writ is denied.

Justices SAYRE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN are of opinion that the evidence commented upon by state’s counsel was erroneously admitted, over defendant’s objection and exception, and that the argument of the solicitor transcended the rule, and that the writ should be granted.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur. SAYRE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 347, 214 Ala. 77, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynn-v-state-ala-1925.