Matthews v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Matthews v. State

125 So. 200, 23 Ala. App. 330, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 263

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1929

Docket1 Div. 857.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 So. 200 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 125 So. 200, 23 Ala. App. 330, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 263 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRJGKEN, P. J.

From the record it nowhere appears that a demand in writing, or otherwise, for a jury trial had been made by the defendant. Upon this being ascertained by the court, the judge of the court properly proceeded to try the defendant without a jury, as he was charged with the commission of a misdemeanor. Section 8598, Code 1923. The state is without authority to waive demand by defendant for a jury trial; the insistence of appellant to the contrary cannot prevail.

Upon the trial, the evidence was in conflict, and therefore presented a question of fact for the decision of the court. -There was evidence that tended to show the accused was found in possession of intoxicating beer. His explanation of his possession and the bona fides thereof was for the court. The exceptions reserved to the court’s rulings upon the trial are without merit. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

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

BRJGKEN, P. J.

From the record it nowhere appears that a demand in writing, or otherwise, for a jury trial had been made by the defendant. Upon this being ascertained by the court, the judge of the court properly proceeded to try the defendant without a jury, as he was charged with the commission of a misdemeanor. Section 8598, Code 1923. The state is without authority to waive demand by defendant for a jury trial; the insistence of appellant to the contrary cannot prevail.

Upon the trial, the evidence was in conflict, and therefore presented a question of fact for the decision of the court. -There was evidence that tended to show the accused was found in possession of intoxicating beer. His explanation of his possession and the bona fides thereof was for the court. The exceptions reserved to the court’s rulings upon the trial are without merit. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 200, 23 Ala. App. 330, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack