Mancil v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mancil v. State

112 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 681

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1927

Docket4 Div. 268.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 923 (Mancil 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

Mancil v. State, 112 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 681 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The aspects of this case in which •a ruling by this court on the propriety vel non of the admission of certain, testimony, over appellant’s timely objection, by witnesses, as to the presence of footprints, knee prints, and hand prints, etc., at the place where the chief prosecuting witness, the alleged assaulted party, claimed the altercation took place, is required, are not materially different from those appearing in a former appeal (Mancil v. State, 21 Ala. App. 200), 106 So. 682, and upon the. authority of the opinion in that case the judgment here must be reversed. The testimony admitted was purely the conclusions of the witnesses, and such is never proper in a matter of this kind. What was said in the opinion in the case of Mancil v. State, supra, o.ught to be a sufficient guide for another trial. Re-versed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

The aspects of this case in which •a ruling by this court on the propriety vel non of the admission of certain, testimony, over appellant’s timely objection, by witnesses, as to the presence of footprints, knee prints, and hand prints, etc., at the place where the chief prosecuting witness, the alleged assaulted party, claimed the altercation took place, is required, are not materially different from those appearing in a former appeal (Mancil v. State, 21 Ala. App. 200), 106 So. 682, and upon the. authority of the opinion in that case the judgment here must be reversed. The testimony admitted was purely the conclusions of the witnesses, and such is never proper in a matter of this kind. What was said in the opinion in the case of Mancil v. State, supra, o.ught to be a sufficient guide for another trial. Re-versed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancil-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack