Norille v. State
131 Ala. 35
Opinion
This case was tried by the judge without a jury. It is sought by thisi appeal only ¡to have his finding and conclusion of guilt on the testimony reviewed. The facts were not agreed upon, nor was there any special finding of them nor request for such finding. On this state of case the conclusion of the judge stands as a verdict of a jury, and cannot be revised by this court. — Bell v. State, 75 Ala. 25; Knowles v. State, 80 Ala. 9; Wright v. State, 29 So. Rep. 864; Fiebelman v. State, 130 Ala. 122.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Norille v. State, 131 Ala. 35 (Ala. 1901).
131 Ala. 35 (Norille v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Orforda v. State
339 So. 2d 1038 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Gordon v. State
310 So. 2d 257 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Stephens v. State
278 So. 2d 245 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Watson v. Adams
65 So. 528 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Mayhall v. State
41 So. 290 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Witherspoon v. State
143 Ala. 65 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Loyd v. Oates
143 Ala. 231 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)