Page v. State

130 So. 2d 227, 273 Ala. 5, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 394
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided April 6, 1961·No. 8 Div. 63·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

STAKELY, Justice.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals states that “A motion for a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal except where abuse of discretion is clearly shown.” When considered in its context, it is apparent that the Court of Appeals [6]*6was considering a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The authorities cited by the Court of Appeals support the statement of the Court of Appeals when so considered. We add that the same statement appears in Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d 750. In that case, as here, the reference is to newly discovered evidence and should be so restricted.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

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

Page v. State, 130 So. 2d 227, 273 Ala. 5, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 394 (Ala. 1961).

130 So. 2d 227 (Page v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borden v. State
522 So. 2d 333 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1988)
Dossey v. State
489 So. 2d 662 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Bradley v. State
450 So. 2d 173 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Walker v. State
445 So. 2d 955 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Bullard v. State
369 So. 2d 877 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Reynolds v. State
346 So. 2d 979 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Page v. State
327 So. 2d 760 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Holifield v. State
159 So. 2d 65 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1963)