Higdon v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SAMFORD, J. ‘
Counsel for appellant now make the insistence that defendant was forced to trial in the absence of his witnesses, for whom subpmnas had been issued and executed. The granting of continuances in criminal cases is largely in the discretion of the trial judge, whose action in this regard will not be reviewed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 272, 97 So. 171.
It is next insisted that this judgment should be reversed, because the trial court refused to grant a new trial on grounds alleging certain irregularities in the drawing of the venire for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lumpkin v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
- Wadsworth v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
- Hamilton v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919
3Cited by7 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1977
- Morris v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1932
- Gann v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1927
- Malloy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1978
- Bell v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.