McGee v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McGee v. State

160 So. 921, 26 Ala. App. 665

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

Docket4 Div. 45.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 So. 921 (McGee 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

McGee v. State, 160 So. 921, 26 Ala. App. 665 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of grand larceny. The specific charge, by indictment, was that he feloniously took and carried away a milch cow, of the value of $35, the personal property of Harvey King, etc.

Upon the trial there was sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti, and the evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense was in conflict, thus rendering inapt the general affirmative charge which was requested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court. There was no error in this ruling of the trial court. This is the principal point of decision presented upon this appeal. Several exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon the admission of the testimony, but these exceptions are so clearly without merit a discussion thereof is unnecessary. Under the evidence adduced upon the trial, the guilt or innocence of the accused was for the jury to determine, and the court properly submitted the case to the jury.

The record proper is without error also; therefore the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of grand larceny. The specific charge, by indictment, was that he feloniously took and carried away a milch cow, of the value of $35, the personal property of Harvey King, etc.

Upon the trial there was sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti, and the evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense was in conflict, thus rendering inapt the general affirmative charge which was requested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court. There was no error in this ruling of the trial court. This is the principal point of decision presented upon this appeal. Several exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon the admission of the testimony, but these exceptions are so clearly without merit a discussion thereof is unnecessary. Under the evidence adduced upon the trial, the guilt or innocence of the accused was for the jury to determine, and the court properly submitted the case to the jury.

The record proper is without error also; therefore the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 921, 26 Ala. App. 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-state-alactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack