Boykin v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.
The affidavit was defective in that, where the word “possession” should have been, there appears the word “possion,” which means nothing. However, .omitting this word as meaningless, the affidavit still charges: “Edd Boykin did have illegally prohibited liquors oontray to law.” The word “have” means “to hold in possession or control,” and “contray” is a mere lapsus pennae. The affidavit eliminating the word “possion” sufficiently charges an offense. ■
Since the case of McLosky v. State, 210 Ala. 458, 98 So. 708, wherein the Shpreme Court overruled this court in its" holding in Hall v. State,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McLosky v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Kyser v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hall v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
- Streanger v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1926
- Dubose v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Womack v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1949
- Holloway v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1956
- Barnes v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1948
- Copeland v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Jackson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1931