Watkins v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Watkins v. State

113 So. 622, 22 Ala. App. 134, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 95

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1927

Docket8 Div. 542.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 So. 622 (Watkins 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

Watkins v. State, 113 So. 622, 22 Ala. App. 134, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 95 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant, put on trial under an indictment charging the offense of assault with intent to murder, was convicted of the misdemeanor, “assault with a weapon.” This operated as an acquittal of the “assault with intent to murder” charge, and consequently written charges requested, and objections to evidence, relating solely to that offense, need not be here considered.

This leaves the sole material question for our attention that of whether or not defendant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. After a careful reading of the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence, while circumstantial, was yet ample to support the verdict returned. And the action of the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses, in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial, will not be disturbed.

Finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant, put on trial under an indictment charging the offense of assault with intent to murder, was convicted of the misdemeanor, “assault with a weapon.” This operated as an acquittal of the “assault with intent to murder” charge, and consequently written charges requested, and objections to evidence, relating solely to that offense, need not be here considered.

This leaves the sole material question for our attention that of whether or not defendant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. After a careful reading of the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence, while circumstantial, was yet ample to support the verdict returned. And the action of the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses, in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial, will not be disturbed.

Finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 622, 22 Ala. App. 134, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack