Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 11 April 1933
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 577.
• Citation: Davis v. State, 147 So. 649, 25 Ala.App. 412 (Ala. App. 1933)
• Parties: DAVIS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

147 So. 649

25 Ala.App. 412

DAVIS v. STATE.

8 Div. 577.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 11, 1933

Appeal from Lawrence County Court; W. R. Jackson, Judge.

Charlie Davis was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Wm. L Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny.

It is well settled that a scintilla of evidence supporting a contention at issue is all that is necessary to require the question raised thereby to be submitted to the jury for decision.Norwood Hospital v. Brown,219 Ala. 445122 So. 411.

There was such scintilla, supporting the charge made by the state, in this case.Hence, the general affirmative charge, duly requested by appellant, was properly refused.

It is likewise, well settled that for the appellate court to be enabled to review the action of the trial court with reference to the motion for a new trial made there by the defendant(appellant) on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, etc., or on any other ground, the bill of exceptions "must contain a sufficient recital to show the making of such motion, the ruling thereon, and an exception thereto"(italics ours).Ex parte Grace(Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co.),213 Ala. 550, 105 So. 707, 708.And seeGrace v. Old Dominion Garment Co.,21 Ala. App. 96, 105 So. 707.

In the instant case, no exception is shown, as required, to the ruling on appellant's motion for a new trial; hence, etc.We have "consider[ed] all...