Thompson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

104 So. 926, 20 Ala. App. 698

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thompson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Ala. App. 498 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 26, 1925·No. 8 Div. 202.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

It would serve no good purpose to set out in detail the evidence in this case. We have read and considered the testimony, and find the case of the state amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The affirm *699 ative charge was,properly refused, and the other charges gave undue prominence to certain facts testified to by the defendant’s witnesses. The defendant has had a fair trial, and, no error being apparent on the record, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

It would serve no good purpose to set out in detail the evidence in this case. We have read and considered the testimony, and find the case of the state amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The affirm *699 ative charge was,properly refused, and the other charges gave undue prominence to certain facts testified to by the defendant’s witnesses. The defendant has had a fair trial, and, no error being apparent on the record, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Thompson v. State, 104 So. 926, 20 Ala. App. 698 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

104 So. 926 (Thompson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.