Legal Opinion

Thomas v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided March 24, 1925No. 7 Div. 48PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.

The appeal in this case is upon the record proper. There being no bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing the written charges requested by the defendant. Eranklin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476; Richey v. State, 16 Ala. App. 187, 76 So. 471; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36.

Eor a like reason -w,e are unable to review the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. Windom v. State, 18 Ala. App. 430, 93 So. 79; Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App. 540, 93 So. 237; McCollum v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stover v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Windom v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  3. Paitry v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Mack v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  5. Franklin v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jiles v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  2. Grayham v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1927
  3. Penningham v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API