Kimbrell v. State

BLimbrell was convicted of burglary. He moved for a new trial; his motion was overruled, and he excepted.

The real question argued by the plaintiff in error in his brief is that the court’s charge on the question of breaking and entering the dwelling-house was not sufficiently clear and full as to substantially embrace the issue made by the evidence under the peculiar facts of this case, and, although there was no request so to charge, that the court committed reversible error. With reference to the question of “breaking and entering” the evidence for the State was as follows: “It was…