Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ala. App. 19

165 So 264

Allen v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 14, 1936

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1936-01-14

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1936-01-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1964

5 state decisions

201936194019501960decided

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 →

RICE, Judge.

¶1 We have endeavored to perform our duty under the provisions of Code 1923, § 3258. But in all that leads up to and includes the judgment of conviction, we find nothing that seems to merit comment.

¶2 The able solicitor seems to have co-operated with the astute counsel representing the defendant (appellant) in stringing out the testimony adduced far beyond any need for developing the facts that were requisite — thus giving rise to a lot of unnecessary rulings and exceptions. But we have examined each of said rulings and find that they were either patently correct, or patently innocuous. Discussion seems superfluous.

¶3 The sentence did not follow correctly the verdict of the jury. For this reason, while the judgment of conviction is, hereby, affirmed, the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

¶4 Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.

/27/alaapp/19 · .json · Public domain