Walker v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Walker v. State

43 So. 188, 150 Ala. 87, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 321

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 2, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 So. 188 (Walker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. State, 43 So. 188, 150 Ala. 87, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 321 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, X

The appellant was indicted and convicted of the offense of appearing in a public place, etc., while intoxicated, under section 4656 of the Code of 1896.

The only point insisted upon by the appellant is that section 4903, which dispenses with any more particular designation of the place than “in a public place,” is violative of our Bill of Rights, securing to a defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This proposition has been thoroughly considered by this court, and the constitutionality of such provision upheld.—Jones v. State, 136 Ala. 123, 34 South. 236; Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; Elam v. State, 25 Ala. 53.

[89]*89There being no error in the record, the judgment of the court is affirmed.

Affimed.

Dowdell, Anderson, and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, X

The appellant was indicted and convicted of the offense of appearing in a public place, etc., while intoxicated, under section 4656 of the Code of 1896.

The only point insisted upon by the appellant is that section 4903, which dispenses with any more particular designation of the place than “in a public place,” is violative of our Bill of Rights, securing to a defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This proposition has been thoroughly considered by this court, and the constitutionality of such provision upheld.—Jones v. State, 136 Ala. 123, 34 South. 236; Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; Elam v. State, 25 Ala. 53.

[89]*89There being no error in the record, the judgment of the court is affirmed.

Affimed.

Dowdell, Anderson, and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 188, 150 Ala. 87, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack