Case ID: ala-app_21/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(107 So. 734)
    MITCHELL v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 331.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    March 23, 1926.)
    Criminal law <@^oI044, 1063(4).
    Sufficiency of evidence to justify conviction cannot be reviewed, in absence of request for affirmative charge or application for new trial.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Etaralson; Judge.
    DeWitt Mitchell was convicted of bigamy, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
    Counsel argue the insufficiency of the evidence and cite Beggs v. State, 55 Ala. 108; 7 C. J. 1170; 26 Cyc. 840.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    There was no request for the affirmative charge, or motion for a new trial. Hence the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented for review.
   SAMFORD, J.

Appellant’s counsel argues very ably and convincingly in brief that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a conviction under the indictment, but nowhere in the record is the question raised in 'such manner as calls fer a review of the court’s action in the matter.

The affirmative charge is not requested, nor is there an application for a new trial. The rulings of the court, as they appear in the record, are free from error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <g==>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes