Wolf v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wolf v. State

111 So. 320, 21 Ala. App. 642, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 218

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 1, 1927·No. 7 Div. 341.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of distilling prohibited liquors, etc.

Where it appears that there was a regular finding of guilt by the jury, followed by an appropriate sentence by the court, a proper adjudication of guilt will, upon appeal, be presumed.

All facts and circumstances constituting a part of the res gesta of the alleged offense are properly allowed to go in evidence.

Thefe 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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of distilling prohibited liquors, etc.

Where it appears that there was a regular finding of guilt by the jury, followed by an appropriate sentence by the court, a proper adjudication of guilt will, upon appeal, be presumed.

All facts and circumstances constituting a part of the res gesta of the alleged offense are properly allowed to go in evidence.

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

Affirmed.

Wolf v. State, 111 So. 320, 21 Ala. App. 642, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 218 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

111 So. 320 (Wolf v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.