Rowell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rowell v. State

88 So. 27, 17 Ala. App. 659, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 13

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1921

Docket4 Div. 669.

StatusPublished

This text of 88 So. 27 (Rowell 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

Rowell v. State, 88 So. 27, 17 Ala. App. 659, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 13 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BRIGKEN, P. J.

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of forgery, a felony. The only exception reserved to the ruling of the court pending this trial was to the action of the court in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

A careful examination of the evidence convinces us that the state’s witness, Reeves, was an accomplice in the forgery complained of, if in fact he was not the principal in the commission of the offense (which the evidence tends strongly to show), and as the conviction of the defendant was had upon the uncorroborated testimony of said witness, and that alone, we must hold that a new trial should have been granted him, as prayed for in the motion. The Attorney General, representing the state upon this appeal, frankly concedes that this conclusion is correct, and, in effect, confesses error in the matters complained of.

The l&w is so clear on the questions involved in this appeal, no elaboration or restatement thereof is deemed necessary. For the error in overruling the motion for a new trial, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRIGKEN, P. J.

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of forgery, a felony. The only exception reserved to the ruling of the court pending this trial was to the action of the court in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

A careful examination of the evidence convinces us that the state’s witness, Reeves, was an accomplice in the forgery complained of, if in fact he was not the principal in the commission of the offense (which the evidence tends strongly to show), and as the conviction of the defendant was had upon the uncorroborated testimony of said witness, and that alone, we must hold that a new trial should have been granted him, as prayed for in the motion. The Attorney General, representing the state upon this appeal, frankly concedes that this conclusion is correct, and, in effect, confesses error in the matters complained of.

The l&w is so clear on the questions involved in this appeal, no elaboration or restatement thereof is deemed necessary. For the error in overruling the motion for a new trial, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 27, 17 Ala. App. 659, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowell-v-state-alactapp-1921.