History
  • No items yet
midpage
Neville v. State
23 Ala. App. 121
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1929
|
Check Treatment

The second count of the indictment in this case, under and on which count the appellant was convicted, not only follows, in substance, the language of Code of 1923, § 4656, but is in the exact language of form 100 (Code 1923, vol. 2, p. 492), the Code form prescribed for indictments for offenses committed under said Code section mentioned. The demurrers to the said second count of the indictment were therefore properly overruled.

The written charges requested by, and refused to, appellant, have each been examined.

In each instance the charge was either manifestly and obviously incorrect, or not due to be given because of the conflict between the evidence on behalf of the state and that on behalf of defendant, or the substance of said charge was fully covered by, and included in, the oral charge of the court, in connection with the written charges given at defendant's request.

We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. *Page 122

Case Details

Case Name: Neville v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 19, 1929
Citation: 23 Ala. App. 121
Docket Number: 8 Div. 811.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.