Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Ala. App. 422

104 So 438

Wideman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided September 2, 1924

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1924-09-02

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-09-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1979

10 state decisions

60192419301940195019601970decided

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 →

¶1 On Rehearing.

SAMFORD, J.

¶2 (for the majority). Under the facts, as presented by this record, the state yvas clearly entitled to the general affirmative charge. The verdict and judgment was for the minimum penalty under the law. Admitting therefore that the court committed technical error in “Permitting the state to prove, over defendant’s objection, that the prosecuting witness paid the defendant for the treatment administered to her by him or what the defendant’s charges for such treatments were, unless this was shown to be of the res gestae of the treatment.” Still, as the state was, on the undisputed evidence, entitled to a conviction, and the penalty imposed was the 'smallest fine provided by-the statute, no injury could possibly have come tó the defendant’s cause by reason of the ruling and the admission of the testimony incident thereto;

¶3*425 The majority of the court are of the opinion and so rule that the rehearing is granted, the judgment of reversal set aside, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

POSTEE., J., dissents..
/20/alaapp/422 · .json · Public domain