Mandell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mandell v. State

108 So. 635, 21 Ala. App. 404, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 167

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 1926

Docket3 Div. 534.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 108 So. 635 (Mandell 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

Mandell v. State, 108 So. 635, 21 Ala. App. 404, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 167 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling whisky. We will not discuss the evidence. It was immaterial as to who, if anybody, instructed state’s witness Talley to turn the bottle of whisky, alleged to have been purchased from defendant, over to Mr. Jones (whoever Mr. Jones was). The trial court seems to have done all it was invoked to do, with reference to the portion of the argument of the solicitor which was objected to, by sustaining the objection and instructing the jury that they were not to consider the statement made. Hence nothing is presented in that regard for our decision. Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala. App. 565, 104 So. 45.

We find no prejudicial error intervening during the trial, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The sentence imposed upon defendant was not in accordance with Code 1923, § 5291. Accordingly the case is remanded for proper sentence. Crusoe v. State, 19 Ala. App. 203, 95 So. 918.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Bemanded for proper sentence.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling whisky. We will not discuss the evidence. It was immaterial as to who, if anybody, instructed state’s witness Talley to turn the bottle of whisky, alleged to have been purchased from defendant, over to Mr. Jones (whoever Mr. Jones was). The trial court seems to have done all it was invoked to do, with reference to the portion of the argument of the solicitor which was objected to, by sustaining the objection and instructing the jury that they were not to consider the statement made. Hence nothing is presented in that regard for our decision. Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala. App. 565, 104 So. 45.

We find no prejudicial error intervening during the trial, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The sentence imposed upon defendant was not in accordance with Code 1923, § 5291. Accordingly the case is remanded for proper sentence. Crusoe v. State, 19 Ala. App. 203, 95 So. 918.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Bemanded for proper sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 635, 21 Ala. App. 404, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandell-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack