Home/Supreme Court of Alabama/Woodson v. State

Woodson v. State

54 So. 181, 170 Ala. 87, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 288
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJuly 6, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by65 cases

This text of 54 So. 181 (Woodson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Woodson v. State, 54 So. 181, 170 Ala. 87, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 288 (Ala. 1910).

Opinions

McCLELLAN, J.

The record proper in this transcript is free from irregularity. The bill of exceptions fails to show that any exception was reserved, in any manner, to any action or ruling of the trial court on the trial. It purports to set out substantially all of the evidence, and it is apparent from it that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction of the offense charged in the indictment. The trial court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person. Having complete jurisdiction, and the judgment being-grounded in a verdict accurately responding to the indictment, the adjudication of guilt, and the sentence therefor, cannot be void.

In respect of cases in the category to which this case belongs, the jurisdiction this court has is appellate only. Review here, in such cases, is limited to those matters upon which action or ruling at nisi prius was invoked and had. Accordingly, where, the evidence is deemed insufficient to warrant a conviction a ruling of the trial court on that proposition must be properly (usually by special instruction requested) invited, in order to invoke or justify a review of the question, so raised below, by this appellate court. Such is the settled rule, on principle and in practice, by which this court is bound. The following decisions of this court, [89]*89among others, are in point, and sustain the rule stated: Knapp v. McBride, 7 Ala. 19; Skinner v. State, 30 Ala. 524; Hubbard v. State, 72 Ala. 164; Dentler v. State, 112 Ala. 70, 20 South. 592; Bowdon v. State, 91 Ala. 61, 8 South. 694; Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. 482.

There being no question reserved for review in this appellate court, the judgment below must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell., C. J., and Anderson, Sayre, and Evans, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ex Parte Bell
978 So. 2d 33 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2007)
Copeland v. State
313 So. 2d 219 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Johnson v. State
272 So. 2d 597 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Echols v. State
249 So. 2d 639 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1971)
Davis v. State
220 So. 2d 852 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1968)
Hudson v. State
184 So. 2d 159 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1966)
Dixon v. State
164 So. 2d 509 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1964)
Maddox v. City of Birmingham
52 So. 2d 164 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
Waller v. State
49 So. 2d 232 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
Lipscomb v. State
29 So. 2d 145 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Thomas v. State
27 So. 2d 792 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1946)
Morris v. State
25 So. 2d 54 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1946)
Young v. State
24 So. 2d 141 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1945)
Gilbert v. State
23 So. 2d 22 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1945)
Couch v. State
20 So. 2d 57 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Barnes v. State
18 So. 2d 110 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Stone v. State
13 So. 2d 434 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
Williams v. State
11 So. 2d 870 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
McClellan v. State
11 So. 2d 871 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1943)
Eatman v. State
5 So. 2d 119 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 So. 181, 170 Ala. 87, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodson-v-state-ala-1910.