Williams v. State

85 So. 595, 17 Ala. App. 429, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 98
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 Ala. App. 285
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 12, 1920·No. 6 Div. 668.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The judgment in this case is affirmed on .authority of Todd v. State, 13 Ala. App. 301, 69 South. 325; the principle there announced being here reaffirmed, and the reasoning here adopted.

On the evidence, it was a question for the jury to say whether the defendant was sworn as a witness in the Hooten Case. The affirmative charge was properly refused.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Williams v. State, 85 So. 595, 17 Ala. App. 429, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 98 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

85 So. 595 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Todd v. State
69 So. 325 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)