Smith v. State

133 So. 741, 24 Ala. App. 241, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 243

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ala. App. 72 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 10, 1931·No. 5 Div. 814.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence was in conflict, making a jury question as to the guilt vel non of the defendant. The affirmative charge was properly refused.

Defendant’s refused charge, which for convenience we have marked 3, is invasive of the province of the jury.

*242 Refused charge 4 is covered by the general charge.

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 evidence was in conflict, making a jury question as to the guilt vel non of the defendant. The affirmative charge was properly refused.

Defendant’s refused charge, which for convenience we have marked 3, is invasive of the province of the jury.

*242 Refused charge 4 is covered by the general charge.

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

Affirmed.

Smith v. State, 133 So. 741, 24 Ala. App. 241, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 243 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

133 So. 741 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.