Summers v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Summers v. State

99 So. 48, 19 Ala. App. 556, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 22

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 1924

Docket7 Div. 953.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 So. 48 (Summers 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

Summers v. State, 99 So. 48, 19 Ala. App. 556, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 22 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

Defendants were convicted of assault and battery, and appeal.

The trial was had before the judge, sitting without a jury. In such cases, the judge in passing upon the facts takes the place of k jury.

The evidence introduced by the state was ample to sustain the finding of guilt as to each defendant.

After conviction, the defendants made a motion for a new trial on the ground that, after the evidence was all in, and the case had been submitted to- the court for decision, the court having the cause under consideration viewed the locus in quo in the absence óf the defendants or - their counsel. The statement of' the trial- judge, which is the only evidence offered to sustain this contention, is to the effect that he did view the locus in quo,- but that this took place on Saturday before the trial of the present cases, which according to the record took place on June 25th. The allegations of the motion, therefore, are not sustained, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

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

SAMPORD, J.

Defendants were convicted of assault and battery, and appeal.

The trial was had before the judge, sitting without a jury. In such cases, the judge in passing upon the facts takes the place of k jury.

The evidence introduced by the state was ample to sustain the finding of guilt as to each defendant.

After conviction, the defendants made a motion for a new trial on the ground that, after the evidence was all in, and the case had been submitted to- the court for decision, the court having the cause under consideration viewed the locus in quo in the absence óf the defendants or - their counsel. The statement of' the trial- judge, which is the only evidence offered to sustain this contention, is to the effect that he did view the locus in quo,- but that this took place on Saturday before the trial of the present cases, which according to the record took place on June 25th. The allegations of the motion, therefore, are not sustained, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 48, 19 Ala. App. 556, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack