Wilson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

134 So. 927, 24 Ala. App. 699

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ala. App. 554 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 19, 1931·No. 6 Div. 883.·Published

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

We have examined each exception reserved on the trial. There is no error prejudicial to the defendant’s rights in any of these rulings. The record presents a simple charge of burglary with circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant with its commission. The facts were properly submitted to a jury.

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

SAMPORD, J.

We have examined each exception reserved on the trial. There is no error prejudicial to the defendant’s rights in any of these rulings. The record presents a simple charge of burglary with circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant with its commission. The facts were properly submitted to a jury.

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

Affirmed.

Wilson v. State, 134 So. 927, 24 Ala. App. 699 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

134 So. 927 (Wilson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.