Legal Opinion

Latner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1924No. 4 Div. 953PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.

The evidence for the state was positive as contradistinguished from circumstantial evidence, and hence charge No. 3 requested in writing was abstract and misleading. The charge, under the evidence in this case, was properly refused. Bosteen Tatum v. State (Ala. App.) ante, p. 24, 100 So. 569; Ex parte Bud Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 618, 100 So. 315.

After the defendants had introduced twelve witnesses, who testified to the defendants’ good character, the court asked de-. fendants’ counsel how many more witnesses he had to offer as to defendants’ character.' Counsel replied giving the names of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jones v. GlidewellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
  2. Leverett v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  3. Ex Parte HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. Ward v. DickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
  5. Hill v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Crews v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Ex Parte LatnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API