Legal Opinion

Crump v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 24, 1941No. 8 Div. 56PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case charged the defendant with the offense of forgery. It contained but one count, and the instrument alleged to have been forged was set out in haec verba. The specific charge was confined to the forgery of said instrument by the defendant. The form in the Code was not followed, there being no charge, “or with intent to injure or defraud did utter and publish as true the said falsely altered, forged, or counterfeited [instrument], knowing the same to be so altered, forged or counterfeited.” Code 1940, tit. 15, § 259, form 63.

Notwithstanding…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crow v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Agee v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
  3. State v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Barbee v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
  2. Ex Parte HarperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  3. Ex Parte LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  4. Sullens v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2003
  5. Coleman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1983

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API