Mitchell v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 255. |
| Citation | Mitchell v. State, 235 Ala. 530, 180 So. 123 (Ala. 1938) |
| Parties | H. J. MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
T. E. Martin and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Rives, all of Montgomery, opposed.
Petition of the State of Alabama, by and through its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Mitchell v. State,180 So. 119.
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
8 cases
-
Blue v. State
... ... argument to the jury, to state or comment on facts damaging ... to defendant, of which there is no evidence before them, and ... of which no legal evidence could be admitted." ... DuBose v. State, 148 Ala. 560, 42 So. 862, 863 ... In the ... case of Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 119, 180 So ... 119, this court said: ... "The ... remaining question presented refers also to alleged improper ... argument of the solicitor wherein he turned to the defendant ... and stated: 'You been slick too long, and your money made ... a fool out of ... ...
-
Houlton v. State
... ... Refused charge 1, being affirmative in nature, was properly refused under the developed evidence of this case ... Charges 3 and 18 are identical. They were properly refused because of the use of the word supposition. Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 119, 180 So. 119, certiorari denied 235 Ala. 530, 180 So. 123 ... Charge 14 was properly refused. See Brown v. State, 33 Ala.App. 97, 31 So.2d 670 ... The foregoing opinion was prepared prior to reading the dissenting opinion of Presiding ... ...
-
People v. Nixten
...408 N.W.2d 77 ... 160 Mich.App. 203 ... PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Jerry NIXTEN, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 86016 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan ... Submitted Aug. 4, ... Mitchell, 402 Mich. 506, 515, 265 N.W.2d 163 (1978). Extrinsic evidence of the matter may become admissible as bearing on defendant's state of mind if that ... ...
-
Racine v. State
... ... Williams v. State, 42 Ala.App. 563, 171 So.2d 474 (1965); Bevins v. State, 39 Ala.App. 228, 97 So.2d 572 (1957), cert. denied 266 Ala. 695, 97 So.2d 574 (1957); Lowman v. State, 38 Ala.App. 612, 91 So.2d 697 (1956), cert. denied 265 Ala. 698, 91 So.2d 700 (1956); Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 119, 180 So. 119 (1938), cert. denied 235 Ala. 530, 180 So. 123 (1938); Grimes v. State, 23 Ala.App. 511, 128 So. 120 (1930); Williams v. State, 22 Ala.App. 489, 117 So. 281 (1928); Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala.App. 49, 81 So. 449 (1919); McMickens v. State, 16 Ala.App. 78, 75 ... ...
Get Started for Free