Spinks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Spinks v. State

108 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 695

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1926

Docket7 Div. 191.

StatusPublished

This text of 108 So. 926 (Spinks 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

Spinks v. State, 108 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 695 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN. P. J.

The ablé oral charge of the court was fair to defendant and covered every phase of the law governing this case. Appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still. The court gave all of the special written charges requested, and in each instance where the court’s ruling was invoked upon the admission of evidence, such ruling' was also fair to defendant, and the several exceptions reserved in this connection are so clearly without merit they need not be discussed. The simplest rules of evidence are involved, the questions decided are elementary only, and no error calculated to injuriously affect the substantial right of appellant appears. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and was for the jury to decide. There was full and ample testimony to sustain the verdict of the jury, and to support the judgment of conviction. Said judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN. P. J.

The ablé oral charge of the court was fair to defendant and covered every phase of the law governing this case. Appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still. The court gave all of the special written charges requested, and in each instance where the court’s ruling was invoked upon the admission of evidence, such ruling' was also fair to defendant, and the several exceptions reserved in this connection are so clearly without merit they need not be discussed. The simplest rules of evidence are involved, the questions decided are elementary only, and no error calculated to injuriously affect the substantial right of appellant appears. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and was for the jury to decide. There was full and ample testimony to sustain the verdict of the jury, and to support the judgment of conviction. Said judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinks-v-state-alactapp-1926.