Sears v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 134 |
| Citation | 65 So. 300,10 Ala.App. 76 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SEARS v. STATE. |
On Rehearing, June 3, 1914
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.
Robert L. Sears was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Affirmed, and rehearing denied.
L.A. Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
We have carefully examined the transcript in this case, and discover no reversible error. The proceedings shown in the record proper are regular, and the bill of exceptions contains nothing requiring or meriting discussion; and no matter has been pointed out or called to our attention by argument or brief in behalf of the appellant as constituting error. Let the judgment appealed from be affirmed.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing.
The appellant, in an application for a rehearing, points out and discusses several matters that are insisted upon as showing reversible error. We have again examined the transcript in connection with the contentions of the appellant, and are of opinion that reversible error is not shown by anything insisted upon in the application. Several of the matters argued as showing error are not reviewable here, as no ruling of the trial court in respect to them is shown by any recital contained in the bill of exceptions. Many of the rulings on the evidence that are insisted upon as constituting error are shown to have been subsequently changed, and the defendant to have been given the benefit of everything he was seeking to obtain through his objections. Rulings to which exceptions were reserved that were not cured or rendered nonprejudicial to the defendant are manifestly correct.
Application denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grier v. State
...benefit of his motion to suppress in that the jury never heard any evidence concerning his inculpatory statements. See Sears v. State, 10 Ala.App. 76, 77, 65 So. 300, cert. denied, 187 Ala. 672, 65 So. 1034 (1914), where the appellate court held that if the rulings were originally erroneous......
-
Norris v. State
...on evidence are not prejudicial where the defendant afterwards elicits the testimony which he first sought to obtain. Sears v. State, 10 Ala.App. 76, 6 So. 300. court did not err in admitting the dying statement of the boy. If there was ever a case where the dying man was impressed with the......