State v. Cauthen

Alabama Court of Appeals

State v. Cauthen

88 So. 63, 18 Ala. App. 75, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 65

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 1921

Docket4 Div 703.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 So. 63 (State v. Cauthen) 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

State v. Cauthen, 88 So. 63, 18 Ala. App. 75, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 65 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Petitioners, appellees here,'were indicted by the grand jury for murder in the-first degree. This charge being prima facie not bailable, petition for habeas corpus was made to the judge of the Second judicial circuit, and from an order granting petitioners bail the state, through its solicitor, appeals, under the provision of Code 1907, § 6245.

That the state has a right of appeal from an order on habeas corpus in a case of this character is settled. Section 6245, Code 1907; State v. Davis, 156 Ala. 181, 47 South. 182; State v. Lowery et al., 143 Ala. 48, 39 South. 309.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether the decision and finding of the judge who heard the petition and entered the order is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We, of course, shall pretermit a discussion of the evidence for obvious reasons, and in reviewing the finding of the primary tribunal, the conclusion of the judge below on the facts, will have regard to the weight which should be accorded by the revising court to the finding of the trial judge, for the reason that the witnesses appeared before him in person, thus affording him the opportunity of seeing and hearing them and of observing their deportment and demeanor on the stand; and the rule is that, unless it appears that his conclusion on the facts is contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence, such conclusion will not be disturbed. From a careful examination of the evidence here, we are not prepared to say that the conclusion,reached by the judge belpw was erroneous, under the rule stated. >

It follows therefore that the order admitting petitioners to bail is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Petitioners, appellees here,'were indicted by the grand jury for murder in the-first degree. This charge being prima facie not bailable, petition for habeas corpus was made to the judge of the Second judicial circuit, and from an order granting petitioners bail the state, through its solicitor, appeals, under the provision of Code 1907, § 6245.

That the state has a right of appeal from an order on habeas corpus in a case of this character is settled. Section 6245, Code 1907; State v. Davis, 156 Ala. 181, 47 South. 182; State v. Lowery et al., 143 Ala. 48, 39 South. 309.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether the decision and finding of the judge who heard the petition and entered the order is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We, of course, shall pretermit a discussion of the evidence for obvious reasons, and in reviewing the finding of the primary tribunal, the conclusion of the judge below on the facts, will have regard to the weight which should be accorded by the revising court to the finding of the trial judge, for the reason that the witnesses appeared before him in person, thus affording him the opportunity of seeing and hearing them and of observing their deportment and demeanor on the stand; and the rule is that, unless it appears that his conclusion on the facts is contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence, such conclusion will not be disturbed. From a careful examination of the evidence here, we are not prepared to say that the conclusion,reached by the judge belpw was erroneous, under the rule stated. >

It follows therefore that the order admitting petitioners to bail is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 63, 18 Ala. App. 75, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cauthen-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack