McCormick v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McCormick v. State

111 So. 647, 21 Ala. App. 654, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 228

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1927

Docket7 Div. 288. [fn*]

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 So. 647 (McCormick 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

McCormick v. State, 111 So. 647, 21 Ala. App. 654, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 228 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

We can find no fault with the portions of the trial court’s oral charge made the basis of exceptions by appellant. The court did no more than tell the jury that defendant’s (appellant’s) testimony should be considered in the light of all the other testimony in the case, and this was permissible.

The other exceptions reserved have each been examined, and in none of the rulings complained of do we find prejudicial error. The case seems to have been fairly tried, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

We can find no fault with the portions of the trial court’s oral charge made the basis of exceptions by appellant. The court did no more than tell the jury that defendant’s (appellant’s) testimony should be considered in the light of all the other testimony in the case, and this was permissible.

The other exceptions reserved have each been examined, and in none of the rulings complained of do we find prejudicial error. The case seems to have been fairly tried, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 647, 21 Ala. App. 654, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack