Maxwell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Maxwell v. State

57 So. 505, 3 Ala. App. 169, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 413

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 So. 505 (Maxwell 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

Maxwell v. State, 57 So. 505, 3 Ala. App. 169, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 413 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

de GBAFFENRIED, J.

When an exception is taken to a part of an oral charge of a, court, then, unless the entire part of the charge to which the exception is taken is faulty as a whole, the exception fails.—Lacy v. State, 154 Ala. 65, 45 South. 680.

One sentence in the part of the oral charge, to which an exception was taken may be subject to criticism, and it may be, as claimed by counsel for the defendant, that it is vicious because it violates that provision of the Code (section 5362) which prohibits a court, ex mero motu, from charging the jury upon the effect of the evidence.—White v. State, 111 Ala. 92, 21 South. 330. The other parts of that portion of the oral charge to which the exception was taken were not subject to that or any other objection. The objection of the defendant to the oral charge of the court was, therefore, not well taken.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

de GBAFFENRIED, J.

When an exception is taken to a part of an oral charge of a, court, then, unless the entire part of the charge to which the exception is taken is faulty as a whole, the exception fails.—Lacy v. State, 154 Ala. 65, 45 South. 680.

One sentence in the part of the oral charge, to which an exception was taken may be subject to criticism, and it may be, as claimed by counsel for the defendant, that it is vicious because it violates that provision of the Code (section 5362) which prohibits a court, ex mero motu, from charging the jury upon the effect of the evidence.—White v. State, 111 Ala. 92, 21 South. 330. The other parts of that portion of the oral charge to which the exception was taken were not subject to that or any other objection. The objection of the defendant to the oral charge of the court was, therefore, not well taken.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 505, 3 Ala. App. 169, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-state-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack