Roberson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Roberson v. State

141 So. 918, 225 Ala. 699

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 12, 1932

Docket1 Div. 699.

StatusPublished

This text of 141 So. 918 (Roberson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberson v. State, 141 So. 918, 225 Ala. 699 (Ala. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree with punishment fixed at twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Defendant was charged with the murder of his wife, and the defense was that the killing was accidental. No question was reserved as to any matter of record proper, which we find to be in order. There is a bill of exceptions in which some few questions as to rulings on evidence were reserved. While no brief appears for appellant, yet, mindful of our duty in cases of this character, these questions have been carefully examined by the court in consultation, and the conclusion reached they clearly present no reversible error, and are of such a character as to call for no separate treatment here.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

. ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, J.

The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree with punishment fixed at twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Defendant was charged with the murder of his wife, and the defense was that the killing was accidental. No question was reserved as to any matter of record proper, which we find to be in order. There is a bill of exceptions in which some few questions as to rulings on evidence were reserved. While no brief appears for appellant, yet, mindful of our duty in cases of this character, these questions have been carefully examined by the court in consultation, and the conclusion reached they clearly present no reversible error, and are of such a character as to call for no separate treatment here.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

. ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 918, 225 Ala. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-state-ala-1932.