Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 5 |
| Citation | 103 So. 76,20 Ala.App. 467 |
| Parties | MORGAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W.L. Parks, Judge.
Lockard Morgan was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Mark D. Brainard, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Charge 7, refused to the defendant, was held good in Olden's Case, 176 Ala. 6, 58 So. 307, but since that time the Supreme Court has held in the Edwards Case, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179, that charges of this character are not correct statements of the law. This court has in many cases followed the Edwards Case, which we think is the correct rule. Thomas v. State (Ala.App.) 96 So. 182; Rikard v. State, 209 Ala. 480, 96 So. 412; Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Jones v. State, 209 Ala. 655, 96 So. 867.
Proper predicates were laid for the introduction of confessions. The rulings on this question were without error.
No exception having been reserved to the court's oral charge, we do not pass upon the objection now made for the first time. Ex parte State ex rel. Smith, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.
We find no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krasner v. State, 6 Div. 232.
...182 Ala. 18, 62 So. 57; Whittle v. State, 213 Ala. 301, 104 So. 668; McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183; and Morgan v. State, 20 Ala.App. 467, 103 So. 76. In Campbell v. State, supra, it was characterized as confused, and not clearly stating an applicable principle of law, and in ......
- Allen v. State
- Prescott v. State
- Parker v. State