Millican v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Millican v. State

153 So. 891, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 41

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1934

Docket8 Div. 942.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 So. 891 (Millican 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

Millican v. State, 153 So. 891, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 41 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The affidavit and complaint upon which this appellant was tried and convicted charged him with the violation of section 3881 of the Code 1923, which makes it an offense for any person to willfully interrupt or disturb any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any other act, at or near the place of worship, etc.

A “Sunday sc-hool” comes within the protection of the foregoing statute, and appellant’s insistence to the contrary cannot be sustained.

The ease was tried by the court without a jury. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The evidence adduced by the state was direct and in our opinion ample upon which to predicate the judgment of conviction as entered by the court below. But few exceptions were reserved pending the trial, and we find none of them contain merit. No prejudicial error appears in any ruling of the trial court; 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.

The affidavit and complaint upon which this appellant was tried and convicted charged him with the violation of section 3881 of the Code 1923, which makes it an offense for any person to willfully interrupt or disturb any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any other act, at or near the place of worship, etc.

A “Sunday sc-hool” comes within the protection of the foregoing statute, and appellant’s insistence to the contrary cannot be sustained.

The ease was tried by the court without a jury. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The evidence adduced by the state was direct and in our opinion ample upon which to predicate the judgment of conviction as entered by the court below. But few exceptions were reserved pending the trial, and we find none of them contain merit. No prejudicial error appears in any ruling of the trial court; therefore the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 891, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millican-v-state-alactapp-1934.