McKenzie v. State

158 So. 773, 26 Ala. App. 295, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 30
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 15, 1935·No. 4 Div. 77.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The state’s witnesses were but two, the sheriff of the county and his deputy. It was entirely a matter of discretion with the court —of which we discover no abuse — that it allowed the sheriff to remain in the courtroom while the deputy testified, and this though the defendant’s (appellant’s) witnesses were, at the request of the solicitor, put “under the rule.” Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991, certiorari denied Id., 201 Ala. 695, 77 So. 999.

The few exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony have each been critically examined by us. In no instance does the ruling underlying same appear to call for discussion. There was patently no prejudicial error in any such ruling.

There was no exception to any part of the court’s oral charge, and no refused written charges. The evidence amply supported the verdict.

We discover nowhere error of a prejudicial nature, and the judgment of conviction must be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

McKenzie v. State, 158 So. 773, 26 Ala. App. 295, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 30 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

158 So. 773 (McKenzie v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
62 So. 2d 473 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1953)
Hendricks v. State
41 So. 2d 420 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)