Bradford v. State, 8 Div. 914
| Decision Date | 08 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 914 |
| Citation | 35 Ala.App. 407,47 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | BRADFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Brown, Scott, Dawson & Stockton, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecution in this case was based upon an affidavit which charged the defendant with the offense of 'reckless driving,' which is prohibited under the Statute, Title 36, Section 3, of the Code of Alabama, 1940. The specific charge being that the defendant, 'did operate a motor vehicle on a highway in Jackson County, Alabama, carelessly and heedlessly in a wilful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed, or in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, any person or property, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.'
The affidavit follows the words of the statute, hence was in proper form and substance. No objection thereto by demurrer or otherwise was interposed.
The trial resulted in the conviction of the defendant, the verdict of the jury being: 'We the jury find the defendant guilty, as charged in the complaint, and assess his fine at $25.00.' Judgment of conviction was pronounced and entered from which this appeal was taken.
The State's case was rested upon the testimony of two highway patrolmen, each of whom testified that on the night of the alleged commission of the offense by the accused, they were patrolling the highway in question and had turned around starting back toward Scottsboro, when the defendant passed them at a high rate of speed and they speeded up after him. They both testified that the defendant was driving a Buick car and at a sharp curve in the road he met two automobiles and these vehicles had to pull their car to the extreme right of the road to avoid a collision with the defendant who was at that time driving at a speed of seventy to seventy-five miles an hour; after the curve was passed within about a mile the patrolmen overtook and arrested the defendant, and charged him with the offense above stated.
The defendant and his wife denied that they were driving at the rate of seventy to seventy-five miles per hour, and both of them testified that their speed was from sixty to sixty-five miles an hour. That the defendant was in the automobile business and the car they were driving was in perfect shape in every way; brakes, lights,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Kesler
...police chase, and drove seven or eight miles over a rough, slick road at speeds ranging from 75 to 90 mph); Bradford v. State, 35 Ala.App. 407, 47 So.2d 599, 600 (1950) (evidence sufficient to sustain conviction where defendant passed two cars on sharp curve driving 70 to 75 mph); see also ......
-
Hines v. State, 4 Div. 191
...the sufficiency of the evidence was correctly ruled on by the trial court in denying and overruling his said motion. In Bradford v. State, 35 Ala.App. 407, 47 So.2d 599, the Court '. . . (T)he principal point relied upon to effect a reversal of the judgment of conviction is the insufficienc......
-
Simms v. State, 4 Div. 313
...out a prima facie case. Morris v. State, 47 Ala.App. 132, 251 So.2d 629; Irons v. State, 42 Ala.App. 349, 165 So.2d 125; Bradford v. State, 35 Ala.App. 407, 47 So.2d 599; Jones v. State, 54 Ala.App. 251, 307 So.2d Alibi evidence is an issue to be determined by the jury. Price v. State, 53 A......
-
Jones v. State, 1 Div. 549
...out a prima facie case. Morris v. State, 47 Ala.App. 132, 251 So.2d 629; Irons v. State, 42 Ala.App. 349, 165 So.2d 125; Bradford v. State, 35 Ala.App. 407, 47 So.2d 599. Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled and denied. In reviewing the refusal of a motion for a new trial, this ......