Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MERRITT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(88 South. 341)
    HARELL et al. v. STATE.
    (7 Div. 669.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 15, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>829(I) — Refusal of requests covered is not error.
    The refusal of requested charges covered by the court’s oral charge is not error.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(14) — In absence of bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that refusal of affirmative charge was correct.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence, it will be presumed on appeal that the refusal of a requested affirma^ five charge was correct.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County ; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.
    Dock Harell and Richard Griffith were convicted of violating the prohibition law, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Willett, Walker & Whiteside, of Anniston, for appellants.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws, and sentenced to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of not less than one year and one day nor more than two years. There is no bill of exceptions, and the time for filing one bas expired.

Refused charges 1, 2, and 3 were substantially covered by the court’s oral charge.

There being no bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence, it is presumed that the trial court properly refused the affirmative charge requested by the defendant.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      ©s>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMDER. in all Key-Numoered Digests and Indexes