Case ID: ala-app_15/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EVANS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hazelwood v. The State.
    Violating Prohibition Law.
    (Decided December 19, 1916.
    73 South. 827.)
    New Trial; Review. — In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a motion for a new trial in a criminal case cannot be reviewed although authorized by the statute; nor will the court review the charges requested by and refused to a defendant where there is no bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.
    Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.
    J. H. Hazelwood was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Frank S. Andres, and E. G. Hewitt, for appellant.
    W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.
   EVANS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the prohibition statute. There is no bill of exceptions incorporated in the transcript, and the appeal comes here on the record proper.

We have repeatedly held that written requests to charge, refused to appellant, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. — Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; Dorough’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; Mitchell’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 71 South. 982; Clay’s Case, 14 Ala. 665, 71 South. 982. For the same reason, we cannot review appellant’s motion for a new trial, now authorized in criminal cases by Acts 1915, p. 722. — Mitchell’s Case, infra, 72 South. 507; Amos Smith’s Case, infra, 73 South. 824.

The proceedings and judgment entry, as disclosed by the record proper, appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.