Post v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Post v. State

93 So. 213, 18 Ala. App. 612, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 250

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1922

Docket3 Div. 391.

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 213 (Post 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

Post v. State, 93 So. 213, 18 Ala. App. 612, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 250 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The judgment of conviction was rendered March 22, 1921. A motion for a new trial was filed April 11, and regularly continued until July 8, 1921, at which time a judgment was rendered overruling the motion. The bill of exceptions was presented to the presiding judge on September 6, 1921. The bill of exceptions as to the original judgment must be stricken, and can only be considered in connection with the appeal from the judgment overruling the motion for new trial and questions embraced therein. Massey v. Pentecost, 206 Ala. 411, 90 South. 866; Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 South. 102.

The first four grounds assigned in the motion for new trial question the sufficiency of the evidence as applied to the law of the case. There was ample evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict of guilty, and therefore these grounds are not well taken.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the witness Wilson, who testified for the state, was not present, or that he was not testifying to the truth.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The judgment of conviction was rendered March 22, 1921. A motion for a new trial was filed April 11, and regularly continued until July 8, 1921, at which time a judgment was rendered overruling the motion. The bill of exceptions was presented to the presiding judge on September 6, 1921. The bill of exceptions as to the original judgment must be stricken, and can only be considered in connection with the appeal from the judgment overruling the motion for new trial and questions embraced therein. Massey v. Pentecost, 206 Ala. 411, 90 South. 866; Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 South. 102.

The first four grounds assigned in the motion for new trial question the sufficiency of the evidence as applied to the law of the case. There was ample evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict of guilty, and therefore these grounds are not well taken.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the witness Wilson, who testified for the state, was not present, or that he was not testifying to the truth.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 213, 18 Ala. App. 612, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack