Riddle v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Riddle v. State

142 So. 680, 25 Ala. App. 142

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1932

Docket5 Div. 883

StatusPublished

This text of 142 So. 680 (Riddle 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

Riddle v. State, 142 So. 680, 25 Ala. App. 142 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

On Rehearing.

In the opinion rendered in this case, the statement therein to the effect that “no mention of the motion for a new trial appears in the bill of exceptions’’ was inadvertent, as the motion for a new trial is set out in the bill of exceptions; hence the opinion is corrected to that extent. What was intended to [144]*144be stated is that no ruling of the court, nor reservation of exception to such ruling is incorporated, or shown, in the bill of exceptions, and, as stated in the opinion, this is essential to review. The fact that the minute entry on the motion for new trial, which incorporates the statement, “to which ruling of the court the defendant duly excepts,” appears in the record proper only, can avail the appellant nothing. Hence the conclusion reached by this court that the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial is not presented for consideration is correct, and is here reaffirmed. Authorities cited in opinion. See, also, Martin v. State, 22 Ala. App. 154, 159, 113 So. 602.

The remaining question presented on application for rehearing needs no further discussion.

Application overruled.

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

On Rehearing.

In the opinion rendered in this case, the statement therein to the effect that “no mention of the motion for a new trial appears in the bill of exceptions’’ was inadvertent, as the motion for a new trial is set out in the bill of exceptions; hence the opinion is corrected to that extent. What was intended to [144]*144be stated is that no ruling of the court, nor reservation of exception to such ruling is incorporated, or shown, in the bill of exceptions, and, as stated in the opinion, this is essential to review. The fact that the minute entry on the motion for new trial, which incorporates the statement, “to which ruling of the court the defendant duly excepts,” appears in the record proper only, can avail the appellant nothing. Hence the conclusion reached by this court that the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial is not presented for consideration is correct, and is here reaffirmed. Authorities cited in opinion. See, also, Martin v. State, 22 Ala. App. 154, 159, 113 So. 602.

The remaining question presented on application for rehearing needs no further discussion.

Application overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 680, 25 Ala. App. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riddle-v-state-alactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack