Williams v. State

127 So. 800, 23 Ala. App. 387

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 14, 1930·No. 3 Div. 644.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Refused charges 5, 6, and 12 are fairly and substantially covered by the court’s oral charge.

Refused charges 8 and 9 do not correctly state the law, in that they omit a willfulness in the false swearing of the witnesses named.

Refused charge 10 is argumentative and misleading.

Rulings on admissions of testimony were free from prejudicial error.

We find no prejudicial 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

SAMFORD, J.

Refused charges 5, 6, and 12 are fairly and substantially covered by the court’s oral charge.

Refused charges 8 and 9 do not correctly state the law, in that they omit a willfulness in the false swearing of the witnesses named.

Refused charge 10 is argumentative and misleading.

Rulings on admissions of testimony were free from prejudicial error.

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Williams v. State, 127 So. 800, 23 Ala. App. 387 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

127 So. 800 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

127 So. 800 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)