Grissett v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The evidence in this case was largely circumstantial, but the evidence tended to connect the defendant with the possession of the still, and was sufficient to authorize the jury in returning a verdict of guilt. Where this is the case, this court will not disturb the jury's finding.
The presumptions given by appellate courts in favor of the judgments of lower courts on motion for a new trial, where the evidence is ore tenus, is not affected by Acts 1915, p. 722. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; McSwean v. McSwean, 204 Ala. 663, 86 So. 646; Mallory S. S. Co. v. Druhan, 16 Ala. App. 438,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hackett v. CashSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Ex parte AcreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Cannon v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919
- Chaney v. Burford Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1980
- Banks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2002
- Ratliff v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
- Story v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1983
- Beverly v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.