Martin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Martin v. State

92 So. 913, 18 Ala. App. 434, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 121

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket8 Div. 848.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 92 So. 913 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 92 So. 913, 18 Ala. App. 434, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 121 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

The state contended that within the period of time covered by the indictment the defendant sold one quart of whisky to the state witness Medlock. There was ample evidence; if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty.

Only two exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon this trial. The witness Gullatt, while testifying in behalf of defendant on cross-examination, volunteered the statement that “he did not think that the defendant was guilty.” Upon motion of the solicitor, the court properly excluded this statement. The exception of the defendant to this ruling is without merit, as the opinion of this witness could not be substituted for that of the jury, and it was for the determination of the jury to decide this, the only issue involved upon this trial.

The argument of the solicitor was not subject to the objection interposed thereto, and the court properly overruled same.

The record is without error. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

The state contended that within the period of time covered by the indictment the defendant sold one quart of whisky to the state witness Medlock. There was ample evidence; if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty.

Only two exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon this trial. The witness Gullatt, while testifying in behalf of defendant on cross-examination, volunteered the statement that “he did not think that the defendant was guilty.” Upon motion of the solicitor, the court properly excluded this statement. The exception of the defendant to this ruling is without merit, as the opinion of this witness could not be substituted for that of the jury, and it was for the determination of the jury to decide this, the only issue involved upon this trial.

The argument of the solicitor was not subject to the objection interposed thereto, and the court properly overruled same.

The record is without error. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 913, 18 Ala. App. 434, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack