Norris v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Norris v. State

142 So. 440, 25 Ala. App. 70, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 78

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1932

Docket8 Div. 475.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 So. 440 (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, 142 So. 440, 25 Ala. App. 70, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 78 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

This case was tried, in the court below, by agreement, jointly with case' numbered here on appeal as 8 Div. 473, 142 So. 440. What was said by us in the opinion in that case, present term Mss., would seem to apply equally here, and the affirmance of the judgment of conviction in this case might well rest thex'eon. But, in answer to the argument by appellant’s counsel that neither judgment of conviction can be sustained, this on the theory that but one act was the basis of both —and to support which argument he cites our case of Trawick v. City of Birmingham, 23 Ala. App. 308, 125 So. 211 — we are constrained to remark that, here the situation shown does not comport with the facts serving as the basis of our holding in the said Trawick v. City of Birmingham. In the case cited there was but one act; here the evidence tended, satisfactorily and sufficiently, to show two, i. e., the “possession of the tools” and the “attempt to burglarize” the building, etc. We perceive nothing in the holding in the Trawick Case, supra, impelling us to hold that the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained in this case.

Finding nowhere prejudicial error, the said judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

This case was tried, in the court below, by agreement, jointly with case' numbered here on appeal as 8 Div. 473, 142 So. 440. What was said by us in the opinion in that case, present term Mss., would seem to apply equally here, and the affirmance of the judgment of conviction in this case might well rest thex'eon. But, in answer to the argument by appellant’s counsel that neither judgment of conviction can be sustained, this on the theory that but one act was the basis of both —and to support which argument he cites our case of Trawick v. City of Birmingham, 23 Ala. App. 308, 125 So. 211 — we are constrained to remark that, here the situation shown does not comport with the facts serving as the basis of our holding in the said Trawick v. City of Birmingham. In the case cited there was but one act; here the evidence tended, satisfactorily and sufficiently, to show two, i. e., the “possession of the tools” and the “attempt to burglarize” the building, etc. We perceive nothing in the holding in the Trawick Case, supra, impelling us to hold that the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained in this case.

Finding nowhere prejudicial error, the said judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 440, 25 Ala. App. 70, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-state-alactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack