Stinson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Stinson v. State

64 So. 507, 10 Ala. App. 110, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 148

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 So. 507 (Stinson 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

Stinson v. State, 64 So. 507, 10 Ala. App. 110, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 148 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

Charge No. 1 reqested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court is not covered by any written charge given at the instance of the defendant, and states a correct legal proposition as applied to the evidence in the case — that is, it is not abstract — and the principle it asserts has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this charge. — Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 South. 591; Naugher v. State, 6 Ala. App. 3, 60 South. 458; Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 South. 761; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 South. 682; Chestnutt v. State, 7 Ala. App. 72, 61 South. 609.

There are other refused charges set out in the bill of exceptions, some of them embodying the same, or practically the same, proposition as charge No. 1; but we do not deem it necessary to discuss these charges or the ruling on the evidence, as they are not matters that will probably enter into another trial.

For the error pointed out, in refusing to give the charge discussed, the judgment of the trial .court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PELHAM, J.

Charge No. 1 reqested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court is not covered by any written charge given at the instance of the defendant, and states a correct legal proposition as applied to the evidence in the case — that is, it is not abstract — and the principle it asserts has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this charge. — Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 South. 591; Naugher v. State, 6 Ala. App. 3, 60 South. 458; Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 South. 761; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 South. 682; Chestnutt v. State, 7 Ala. App. 72, 61 South. 609.

There are other refused charges set out in the bill of exceptions, some of them embodying the same, or practically the same, proposition as charge No. 1; but we do not deem it necessary to discuss these charges or the ruling on the evidence, as they are not matters that will probably enter into another trial.

For the error pointed out, in refusing to give the charge discussed, the judgment of the trial .court must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 507, 10 Ala. App. 110, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stinson-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack