Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • William H. Brantley, Jr., of Birmingham, for
  • Counsel argues for error in the refusal of charges requested by defendant, but in view of the decision it is not necessary to set out the brief
  • Harwell G. Davis,
  • , Jim Davis,
  • ,
  • Willard Drake,
  • , both of Birmingham, for the
  • Where there is no bill of exceptions, there can be no review of the refusal of charges requested by
  • Mack v. State, 201
  • 269, 77 So. 683.
Judges
  • FOSTER, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • William H. Brantley, Jr., of Birmingham, for
  • Counsel argues for error in the refusal of charges requested by defendant, but in view of the decision it is not necessary to set out the brief
  • Harwell G. Davis,
  • , Jim Davis,
  • ,
  • Willard Drake,
  • , both of Birmingham, for the
  • Where there is no bill of exceptions, there can be no review of the refusal of charges requested by
  • Mack v. State, 201
  • 269, 77 So. 683.
Judges
  • FOSTER, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Adolph MOTLEY v. STATE.

FOSTER, J.

The appeal is upon the record, without bill of exceptions. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the requested written charges refused to the defendant cannot be reviewed. Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Richey v. State, 16 Ala. App. 187, 76 So. 471; Franklin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 192, 76 So. 476. We find no error in the record. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

MOTLEY v. STATE
(Dec 16, 1924)