Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0056-01.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

(88 South. 351)
    JONES v. STATE.
    (7 Div. 690.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 8, 1921.)
    !. Criminal law t&wkey;5SI (I)— State has burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    The state has the burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;260(l 1) — Reasonable presumptions indulged in favor of correctness of judgment.
    Where a case was prosecuted before a judge, and where all the evidence was given ore tenus and was in sharp conflict, all reasonable presumptions are allowed in favor of the correctness of the judgment.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Dekalb County; W. W. Harralson, Judge.
    . John Nelson Jones was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Isbell, Scott & Downer, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The judge trying this case had all the parties and witnesses before him, had the advantage of observing their manner on the stand, their expressions, hesitancies in testifying, if any, and all the testimony was given ore tenus. The evidence is in sharp conflict, but even with the burden resting on the state of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when all reasonable presumptions are allowed in favor of the correctness of the judgment, we are unwilling to say that the trial court was wrong in its conclusions. ,

There was no error in the admission of testimony, and appellant’s counsel does not so contend.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      «Sr^okor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes