Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • John W. Altman, of Birmingham, for appellant. While the case of Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So. 83, holds that the evidence objected to was admissible, this case as to this was overruled by the Supreme Court ( 201 Ala. 532, 78 So. 886), and the court erred in admitting the testimony ( 137 Ala. 59, 34 So. 840; 100 Ala. 130, 14 So. 472; 86 Ala. 54, 5 So. 419; 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; 68 Ala. 599). Counsel discuss other matters, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Joseph R. Tate, Sol., John C. Morrow, Asst. Sol., and Gibson Davis, all of Birmingham, for the State. Counsel discuss the authorities cited by counsel of appellant, with the insistence that the true rule is stated in 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So. 83.
Judges
  • SAMFORD, 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)
  • John W. Altman, of Birmingham, for appellant. While the case of Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So. 83, holds that the evidence objected to was admissible, this case as to this was overruled by the Supreme Court ( 201 Ala. 532, 78 So. 886), and the court erred in admitting the testimony ( 137 Ala. 59, 34 So. 840; 100 Ala. 130, 14 So. 472; 86 Ala. 54, 5 So. 419; 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; 68 Ala. 599). Counsel discuss other matters, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Joseph R. Tate, Sol., John C. Morrow, Asst. Sol., and Gibson Davis, all of Birmingham, for the State. Counsel discuss the authorities cited by counsel of appellant, with the insistence that the true rule is stated in 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So. 83.
Judges
  • SAMFORD, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

DILL v. STATE.

SAMFORD, J.

After proof of the act of intercourse which was claimed by the state to have been the basis for the charge, the state was permitted, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, to prove six other subsequent acts. However much this court might be inclined to the views expressed in Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So. 83, that case, on this point, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480, 78 So. 386, and this court, by virtue of the statute is bound by it.

There are other questions presented by the record, but they will not probably arise upon another trial.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Comments

DILL v. STATE
(Jun 14, 1921)