Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

198 Ala. 23

Hines v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 21, 1916

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1916-12-21

<p>Murder.</p> <p>New Trial; Criminal Case; Review. — The evidence examined and held too meager to support the verdict, and that defendant’s rhotion for new trial should .have been granted.</p> <p>(Thomas, J., dissents.)</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1933

2 state decisions

Relies on Cobb v. Malone

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1916-12-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The court, upon consideration of the evidence in this case in conference of all the judges, directs that its *24opinion be expressed to the following effect: Allowing all reasonable presumptions in favor of the correctness of the verdict and judgment, but remembering that the burden rested upon the state of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence in support of the verdict is so meager and unsatisfactory as to convince the court that it is wrong and unjust.Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738. It follows that the verdict and judgment should have been set aside on defendant’s motion, and fpr the error in overruling the motion the verdict and judgment are here set aside, and the cause remanded for another trial.

¶2Reversed and remanded.

All the Judges concur, except Thomas, J., who dissents.
/198/ala/23 · .json · Public domain