Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Ala. App. 110

Stinson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 22, 1914

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1914-01-22

Heard before Hon.. E. S. Lyman. Furman Stinson was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals.

Relies on Adams v. State · Hammond v. State · Burkett v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1914-01-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1953

3 state decisions

1019141920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PELHAM, J.

¶1Charge No. 1 reqested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court is not covered by any written charge given at the instance of the defendant, and states a correct legal proposition as applied to the evidence in the case — that is, it is not abstract — and the principle it asserts has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this charge. Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 South. 591; Naugher v. State, 6 Ala. App. 3, 60 South. 458; Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 South. 761; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 South. 682; Chestnutt v. State, 7 Ala. App. 72, 61 South. 609.

¶2There are other refused charges set out in the bill of exceptions, some of them embodying the same, or practically the same, proposition as charge No. 1; but we do not deem it necessary to discuss these charges or the ruling on the evidence, as they are not matters that will probably enter into another trial.

¶3For the error pointed out, in refusing to give the charge discussed, the judgment of the trial .court must be reversed.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/10/alaapp/110 · .json · Public domain