History
  • No items yet
midpage
Williams v. State
127 So. 800
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1930
|
Check Treatment

Refused charges 5, 6, and 12 are fairly and substantially covered by the court's oral charge.

Refused charges 8 and 9 do not correctly state the law, in that they omit a willfulness in the false swearing of the witnesses named.

Refused charge 10 is argumentative and misleading.

Rulings on admissions of testimony were free from prejudicial error.

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

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jan 14, 1930
Citation: 127 So. 800
Docket Number: 3 Div. 644.
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.