Gable v. State, 1 Div. 208.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 208. |
| Citation | Gable v. State, 245 Ala. 53, 15 So.2d 600 (Ala. 1943) |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | GABLE et al. v. STATE |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1943.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Beddow Ray & Jones, of Birmingham, and Hybart & Chason, of Bay Minette, for the petition.
Wm. N McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty Gen., opposed.
We do not find ourselves in accord with the suggestion in the opinion of the Court of Appeals that the remark of the solicitor as to the failure of one of the defendants to testify did not infringe on our statute. Code 1940, Title 15 Sec. 305; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. 656. But considering the remark improper, we are persuaded the opinion discloses that the trial court in regard thereto applied a timely and appropriate corrective, and, of consequence, no error to reverse appears.
No other portion of the opinion calls for comment. The writ is due to be denied.
Writ denied.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Berness v. State
... ... It has been held that, when a part of the trial proceedings was conducted in the absence of the accused, it was not harmful error and a basis for reversal if the defendant was brought into court and the same proceedings were repeated in his presence. Gable v. State, 31 Ala.App. 280, 15 So.2d 594, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 53, 15 So.2d 600; Ferguson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 491, 137 So. 315, certiorari denied 223 Ala. 521, 137 So. 317; Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633 ... If we adhere to Judge HARWOOD'S view the case of ... ...
- Coats v. State
-
Broadway v. State
...upon the jury, the judgment of conviction should not be reversed or a motion for a new trial granted on that account. Gable v. State, 245 Ala. 53, 15 So.2d 600; Arant v. State, 232 Ala. 275, 167 So. 540; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358(22), 104 So. 656; Smith v. State, 34 Ala.App. 194, 38......
-
Troup v. State
... ... such remarks should not cause a reversal of the case. [32 ... Ala.App. 320] Watkins v. State, 21 Ala.App. 585, 111 ... So. 43; Lucas v. State, 24 Ala.App. 468, 137 So ... 902; Curlette v. State, 25 Ala.App. 179, 142 So ... 775; Gable v. State, 31 Ala.App. 280, 15 So.2d 594, ... certiorari denied, 245 Ala. 53, 15 So.2d 600 ... We ... have set out verbatim that portion of the record dealing with ... the improper remarks of the Solicitor in order to show the ... vigor with which the trial judge attempted to erase ... ...