Thomas v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

103 So. 479, 20 Ala. App. 550, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 69

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1925

Docket7 Div. 48.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 So. 479 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 103 So. 479, 20 Ala. App. 550, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 69 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The appeal in this case is upon the record proper. There being no bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing the written charges requested by the defendant. Eranklin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Richey v. State, 16 Ala. App. 187, 76 So. 471; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36.

Eor a like reason -w,e are unable to review the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. Windom v. State, 18 Ala. App. 430, 93 So. 79; Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App. 540, 93 So. 237; McCollum v. State, 18 Ala. App. 558, 93 So. 261; Pearce v. State, 18 Ala. App. 611, 93 So. 221; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 So. 393; Gen. Acts Ala. 1915, p. 722.

We find no error on the record, and the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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