Murray v. State

Decided November 25, 1919

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1919-11-25

1. Criminal Law <@=^753(2) — Affirmative Charges Properly Refused, Where Evidence Tended to Prove Allegations. Where there, was evidence tending to prove the allegations in the several counts of the complaint, defendant’s requested affirmative charges were properly refused. 2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1170(4 (2) — Erroneous Question Held Harmless, in View of Answer. In prosecution for violating the prohibition law, question to defendant, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?” if error, was rendered harmless by answer that he could not remember. &wkey;»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1919-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1955

5 state decisions

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 →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 The only errors complained of are the refusal of the court to give at the request of the defendant in writing the affirmative charges as to the several counts in the complaint, and to the action of the court in allowing the solicitor to ask the defendant, while on the witness stand, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?”

¶2 [1] There was evidence tending to prove the allegations in the several counts of the complaint, and therefore the charges requested were properly refused.

¶3 [2] The defendant, in answer to the question, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?” answered that he did not remember. If the question was erroneous, the answer rendered it harmless.

¶4 We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶5 Affirmed.