McQueen v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McQueen v. State

88 So. 190, 17 Ala. App. 628, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 243

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 1920

Docket6 Div. 703.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 So. 190 (McQueen 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

McQueen v. State, 88 So. 190, 17 Ala. App. 628, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 243 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment for assault with intent to murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than five years. There is no bill of exceptions, and the time for filing one has expired.

[1,2] The court will not review the motion for a new trial, as there is no showing as to what evidence, if any, was offered in connection with the motion. Ross v. State, 16 Ala. App. 393, 78 South. 309. Neither will the charges refused to the appellant be considered, there being no bill of exceptions, and the oral charge of thQ court not being set out. Climer v. St. Clair County Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 656, 77 South. 30; Dorough v. State, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; Taylor v. State, 14 Ala. App. 13, 70 South. 949.

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

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment for assault with intent to murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than five years. There is no bill of exceptions, and the time for filing one has expired.

[1,2] The court will not review the motion for a new trial, as there is no showing as to what evidence, if any, was offered in connection with the motion. Ross v. State, 16 Ala. App. 393, 78 South. 309. Neither will the charges refused to the appellant be considered, there being no bill of exceptions, and the oral charge of thQ court not being set out. Climer v. St. Clair County Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 656, 77 South. 30; Dorough v. State, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; Taylor v. State, 14 Ala. App. 13, 70 South. 949.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 190, 17 Ala. App. 628, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcqueen-v-state-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack