Tidwell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Tidwell v. State

31 So. 2d 899, 33 Ala. App. 157

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1947

Docket8 Div. 558.

StatusPublished

This text of 31 So. 2d 899 (Tidwell 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

Tidwell v. State, 31 So. 2d 899, 33 Ala. App. 157 (Ala. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

From a judgment of conviction for the offense of forgery in the second degree, this appeal was taken.

The State’s evidence tended to prove the material allegations of the indictment. It was amply sufficient to prove the corpus delicti*, The main question of fact upon the trial of this case was the identity of the person who committed the crime. Upon this question the evidence was in dispute and of course for the jury to consider and determine. The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied that he was the person who committed the crime. The evidence for the State on this question was in direct conflict, and tended to show that the accused was the identical person who committed the forgery complained of in the indictment. The jury decided this question adversely to the defendant, and it is the opinion of this court, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken.

The trial proceeded without semblance of error. But few exceptions were reserved pending the trial, and the questions involved were so clearly without merit no detailed discussion is necessary.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

From a judgment of conviction for the offense of forgery in the second degree, this appeal was taken.

The State’s evidence tended to prove the material allegations of the indictment. It was amply sufficient to prove the corpus delicti*, The main question of fact upon the trial of this case was the identity of the person who committed the crime. Upon this question the evidence was in dispute and of course for the jury to consider and determine. The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied that he was the person who committed the crime. The evidence for the State on this question was in direct conflict, and tended to show that the accused was the identical person who committed the forgery complained of in the indictment. The jury decided this question adversely to the defendant, and it is the opinion of this court, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken.

The trial proceeded without semblance of error. But few exceptions were reserved pending the trial, and the questions involved were so clearly without merit no detailed discussion is necessary.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 2d 899, 33 Ala. App. 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidwell-v-state-alactapp-1947.