Haney v. State, 7 Div. 935.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 935. |
| Citation | 33 Ala.App. 524,36 So.2d 116 |
| Parties | HANEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 11, 1948.
J W. Brown, of Boaz, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The offense, charged by affidavit against this appellant defendant below, was, that he did operate an automobile upon the highway of St. Clair County, in the State of Alabama, while under the influence of intoxicating liquors or beverages in violation of law. (We have omitted formal parts.)
The prosecution originated in the county court, and from a judgment of conviction in said court an appeal was taken to the circuit court and pursuant to agreement was tried before the court without a jury, upon a complaint filed by the solicitor, as the law requires.
Upon the trial in the circuit court, as defense to the crime charged, the defendant insisted (1) that he was not intoxicated at the time the unfortunate and fearful collision between his truck, and the Cadillac car occurred, (2) that he was not driving his truck when it did happen. On each of these questions the evidence adduced upon the trial was in sharp and irreconcilable conflict. There were several eye witnesses to the collision and their testimony, coupled with that of the two law officers who arrived at the scene in a few minutes after the collision, tended to make out the State's case in its every detail.
From a careful and attentive consideration of the entire record we are convinced that the trial court accorded the defendant a thoroughly fair and impartial trial, free from semblance of injurious error. The oft stated and settled rule is, a judgment of conviction by court trying a case without a jury must be affirmed where this court could not say that the conclusion reached by the trial court was clearly wrong or so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. 7 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, k1159(2).
With commendable earnestness able counsel for appellant urges this court to place the trial court in error in overruling and denying defendant's motion for a new trial. This insistence in effect would necessitate the substitution of this court for the trial court, and this we are without authority to do. The learned and experienced judge who tried this case had the witnesses before him; he saw and heard them testify, and had the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. State, 6 Div. 855
...as to be manifestly unjust. Moseley v. State, 53 Ala.App. 272, 299 So.2d 317, cert. denied 292 Ala. 743, 299 So.2d 319; Haney v. State, 33 Ala.App. 524, 36 So.2d 116, cert. denied, 250 Ala. 664, 36 So.2d That the trial court deemed that there were some mitigating circumstances and that ther......
- Powell v. State, 6 Div. 440.
-
Haney v. State
...Vernon Haney for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Haney v. State, 36 So.2d 116. certiorari is stricken for failure to comply with Rules of Practice in Supreme Court, rule 36, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix, p. 1017. ......
-
Huguley v. City of Demopolis, 2 Div. 433
...reached by the trial court was clearly wrong or so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Haney v. State, 33 Ala.App. 524, 36 So.2d 116 (1948); Edmondson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 433, 7 So.2d 508 (1942). The weight and sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility......