Holmes v. State

Decided December 14, 1920

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1920-12-14

Criminal Law <&wkey;l 090(14, 16) — Refused Charges and Motion for New Teial not Considered on Appeal, where no Bill of Exceptions. Where, on an appeal from a conviction of burglary, the record contained no bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence, and the time for filing one had expired, defendant’s refused charges and motion for a new trial cannot be considered. <§=E’or other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

Relies on 16 Ala. App. 393 - Ross v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1920-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1979

4 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 →

MERRITT, J.

¶1 The defendant was- tried

¶2 and convicted under an indictment charging burglary, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than one year and one day nor more than two years. The record contains no bill of exceptions and the time for filing one has expired. The refused charges and motion for a new trial cannot be considered, there being no bill of exception setting out the evidence in the trial. Ross v. State, 16 Ala. App. 393, 78 South. 309. The record discloses that the defendant was legally convicted; and, there being no error, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.