Norris v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Norris v. State

74 So. 394, 15 Ala. App. 567, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 37

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 So. 394 (Norris 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

Norris v. State, 74 So. 394, 15 Ala. App. 567, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 37 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

(1, 2) The motion to set aside the verdict and grant the defendant a new trial was properly overruled by the trial court. No evidence was offered in substantiation of any ground set out except by the affidavit of a juryman undertaking to impeach the verdict as having been rendered on an understanding between the members of the jury as to the punishment that would be imposed that was not carried out. The question of the proper punishment within the statutory limitations was a matter for the court. The court was right in not considering the affidavit seeking to impeach the verdict. An affidavit of a juror is not admissible in this state, under the rulings of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of impeaching the verdict on motion for a new trial. — Birmingham R., L. & P. Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 South. 1024, and cases collected and cited on page 130; Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 403, 64 South. 619.

The rulings of the trial court on the evidence are free from error that would authorize a reversal, and do not, we think, require discussion to demonstrate their freedom from reversible error.

*568 An examination of the entire record does not disclose prejudicial error in the rulings of the court below, and an affirmance of the judgment of conviction is ordered.

Affirmed.

Bricken, J., not sitting.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

(1, 2) The motion to set aside the verdict and grant the defendant a new trial was properly overruled by the trial court. No evidence was offered in substantiation of any ground set out except by the affidavit of a juryman undertaking to impeach the verdict as having been rendered on an understanding between the members of the jury as to the punishment that would be imposed that was not carried out. The question of the proper punishment within the statutory limitations was a matter for the court. The court was right in not considering the affidavit seeking to impeach the verdict. An affidavit of a juror is not admissible in this state, under the rulings of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of impeaching the verdict on motion for a new trial. — Birmingham R., L. & P. Co. v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 South. 1024, and cases collected and cited on page 130; Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 403, 64 South. 619.

The rulings of the trial court on the evidence are free from error that would authorize a reversal, and do not, we think, require discussion to demonstrate their freedom from reversible error.

*568 An examination of the entire record does not disclose prejudicial error in the rulings of the court below, and an affirmance of the judgment of conviction is ordered.

Affirmed.

Bricken, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 394, 15 Ala. App. 567, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack