Poole v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Poole v. State

173 So. 97, 27 Ala. App. 383, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 26

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1937

Docket8 Div. 351.

StatusPublished

This text of 173 So. 97 (Poole 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

Poole v. State, 173 So. 97, 27 Ala. App. 383, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 26 (Ala. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The exceptions reserved to the introduction of testimony on the trial are without merit. The testimony adduced could not in the remotest degree have affected the substantial rights of the defendant.

The testimony being in conflict, re-fused charge 1 was properly refused.

Refused charge A-l was abstract. The guilt of the defendant did not'depend upon the testimony of the witness, Rufus Daniel.

Refused charges A-3, A-4, and A-5 were properly refused. This case is not based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, on the contrary, the evidence is positive as to the corpus delicti and the guilt of the defendant. These charges assumed a state of facts which does not exist in this case. Such charges are always bad.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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