Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Ala. App. 297

115 So 71

Green v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 10, 1928

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1928-01-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1929

2 state decisions

Relies on Brantley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-01-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 We have carefully read and considered this record. The evidence is in conflict, and hence the court properly refused the affirmative charge1. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to impeach the manner of making profert of the baby. In a bastardy proceeding, profert of the baby is permissible. Brantley v. State, 11 Ala. App. 144, 65 So. 678. Refused charge 2 pretermits a consideration of the evidence, and refused charge 3 is covered by the given charges.

¶2 It is true this conviction rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of the mother of the child. That is true in most prosecutions of this character, and can rarely be avoided; but the jury, having all .the parties before them, must determine and declare where the truth lies. The appellate court will not for that reason alone set aside the verdict, where the trial judge has overruled a motion for new trial. Let the judgment be affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.

/22/alaapp/297 · .json · Public domain