Milazzo v. State
Decision Date | 08 June 1939 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 519. |
Citation | 238 Ala. 241,189 So. 907 |
Parties | MILAZZO v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1939.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of N. J. Milazzo for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case styled Milazzo v. State, 189 So. 905, and in the alternative, for writ of mandamus.
Writ denied.
Beddow Ray & Jones, of Birmingham, for petitioner.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The question for decision is the right of review of the Court of Appeals under the opinion rendered.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is as follows:
The contention of appellant is that much illegal evidence was presented against him over his objection and that much legal evidence in his behalf offered by him was rejected by the court below; that much of the evidence which the jury was permitted to consider was not such evidence as the jury had a legal right to consider. Petitioner contended, also, that he was denied the right to present all legal evidence in his behalf, thereby being deprived of his constitutional right to be heard, in his own defense, denied the right to the equal protection of the laws and denied due process of law. He further contends that the jury's verdict was thereby probably influenced and that the jury's verdict would probably have been different had only legal evidence been admitted against him, and had all legal evidence in his behalf been admitted by the court below.
The appellant further insists that:
"It therefore follows that if the Supreme Court of Alabama is to have any effective supervision of the Court of Appeals the Supreme Court of Alabama must have and exercise jurisdiction to require the Court of Appeals to present the questions of law and fact which are submitted to it in such manner as that the Supreme Court of Alabama may know what its judgment decides." Otherwise stated by appellant, his contention is:
In Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 190 Ala. 132, 67 So. 256, this court stated the rule that has long prevailed that the finding of fact by the Court of Appeals is conclusive. Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992. This rule has been consistently followed and applied in this jurisdiction. 112 A.L.R. 1385 N.
In Rochester-Hall Drug Co. v. Bowden, 218 Ala. 242, 118 So. 674, Mr. Justice Foster thus applies the rule: "While the rule has frequently been referred to by this court that, upon certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review its rulings, it will not review the facts 'for the purpose of revising the application of same to the law by said Court of Appeals' (Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91; Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992; Ex parte Savannah Williams, 182 Ala. 34, 62 So. 63), this court, however, will review the rulings of said court, to ascertain if it has correctly determined legal conclusions from facts found by it to exist in the record, or has misapplied the law to such facts (Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617).
In Cranford v. National Surety Corp., 231 Ala. 636, 166 So. 721, this court held that when there is no dispute about the facts, we will examine the record for a more complete understanding of those features which are treated by the Court of Appeals.
In Ex parte Hale, 225 Ala. 267, 142 So. 589, Mr. Justice Knight observes: See also Smith v. State, 227 Ala. 160, 148 So. 860. And in Reichert Milling Co. v. George, 230 Ala. 3, 162 So. 393, 395, the further observation is made:
Is not, then, the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the effect that the trial court was free from error in rulings on admission and rejection of evidence, in a determination concerning the legal questions and the admissibility of such evidence and testimony of the several witnesses, indicated in appellant's brief, conclusive upon this court?
In the instant case the petitioner complains that the opinion of the Court of Appeals does not touch upon any question at issue on appeal determined by its judgment. It is insisted that in this "state of affairs the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State
...found by it to exist in the record, or has misapplied the law to such facts. Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907; Parham v. State, 217 Ala. 398, 116 So. 418; Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 32 So.2d 233; Morrison v. State, 267 Ala. 258, 1......
-
Clark v. State
... ... in his own defense in the denial of such charge or admission ... Teal's statements in defendant's hearing and his ... silence under the circumstances show that Teal's first ... confession was competent evidence against Clark, the other ... conspirator. Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So ... 907; Sam Underwood v. State, Ala.Sup., 193 So. 155; ... Lowman v. State, 161 Ala. 47, 50 So. 43; ... National Park Bank v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 199 ... Ala. 192, 74 So. 69; 6 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, + 516, ... The ... rule as to ... ...
-
Underwood v. State
...Such evidence may be said to be beside the inquiry as the subsequent act of an alleged co-conspirator and accomplice. Milazzo v. State, Ala.Sup., 189 So. 907. rule, under the plea of insanity, is stated in Gilbert v. State, 172 Ala. 386, 56 So. 136, 137, as follows: "* * * a defendant charg......
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 584.
... ... Court of Appeals [249 Ala. 413] on the facts or the ... application of the law to the facts. * * * " ... See ... also Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905; ... Ex parte Steverson, 211 Ala. 597, 100 So. 912; Milazzo v ... State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907 ... The ... statement of facts in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in ... the case at bar with reference to the disallowance of ... testimony of the three witnesses referred to in the opinion, ... does not justify our review on petition ... ...