State v. Reeves

Alabama Court of Appeals

State v. Reeves

72 So. 509, 15 Ala. App. 27, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 95

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 So. 509 (State v. Reeves) 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. Reeves, 72 So. 509, 15 Ala. App. 27, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 95 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

This appeal is from an order of the judge of probate of Tallapoosa county, admitting the petitioner (appellee) to bail to answer a charge of murder in the first degree, of which offense he had been indicted by a grand jury of the county. The record recites: “After hearing all the evidence in this case and carefully considering the same, the court reaches the conclusion, and it is the opinion of thé court, that petitioner, the said H. L. Reeves is entitled to bail.”

The evidence was given ore tenus, and is in conflict. In considering the evidence under such circumstances, the primary tribunal has an obvious advantage over the reviewing court, whose information is derived solely from the written report of the testimony set out in the record, in arriving at a proper conclusion (Butler, et al. v. State, 1 Ala. App. 265, 56 South. 20) ; and we are not impressed, and cannot say, from a reading of the conflicting evidence set out, with a due observance of the established rule that the finding of the primary tribunal should not be disturbed unless contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence (State v. Lacey, 158 Ala. 16, 48 South. 343), that the conclusion reached is erroneous.

*28 The order of the judge of probate, granting the petitioner bail, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

This appeal is from an order of the judge of probate of Tallapoosa county, admitting the petitioner (appellee) to bail to answer a charge of murder in the first degree, of which offense he had been indicted by a grand jury of the county. The record recites: “After hearing all the evidence in this case and carefully considering the same, the court reaches the conclusion, and it is the opinion of thé court, that petitioner, the said H. L. Reeves is entitled to bail.”

The evidence was given ore tenus, and is in conflict. In considering the evidence under such circumstances, the primary tribunal has an obvious advantage over the reviewing court, whose information is derived solely from the written report of the testimony set out in the record, in arriving at a proper conclusion (Butler, et al. v. State, 1 Ala. App. 265, 56 South. 20) ; and we are not impressed, and cannot say, from a reading of the conflicting evidence set out, with a due observance of the established rule that the finding of the primary tribunal should not be disturbed unless contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence (State v. Lacey, 158 Ala. 16, 48 South. 343), that the conclusion reached is erroneous.

*28 The order of the judge of probate, granting the petitioner bail, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 509, 15 Ala. App. 27, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reeves-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack