Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 124 Ala. 76
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Nov 15, 1899
Status
Published
Author
McClellan
On the bench
McClellan
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 56.5%

The opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— The several rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of testimony, to which exceptions were reserved, are either so obviously free from error or lacking in prejudice to the appellant that we deem a discussion of them unnecessary to the conclusion that a reversal cannot be based upon them.

The first charge requested by the defendant — viz: “If the confession of the defendant as narrated by the wit *77 nesses B. T. Taylor and W. H. Taylor were obtained from the defendant by a threat on their part or by a promise to release the defendant from the dart cell, if he was there confined, then yon cannot consider that evidence,” has been often adjudged bad by this court as in effect submitting to the jury the question of the admissibility of confessions. — Bob v. State, 32 Ala. 560 ; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 65 ; Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255 ; Young et al. v. State, 68 Ala. 569 ; McCuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147 .

The second charge refused to the defendant was properly refused on account of its argumentative character, if not for other reasons.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.