holding that “a motion for a judgment of acquittal that challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only generally, i.e., that the State failed to *754 prove a prima facie case or words to that effect, does not preserve for review the specific claim that an accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “a motion for a judgment of acquittal that challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only generally, i.e., that the State failed to *754 prove a prima facie case or words to that effect, does not preserve for review the specific claim that an accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated”
- both refusing to consider argument that conviction was based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony when that argument had not been properly presented to the trial court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHAW, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the main opinion. I write specially only to urge the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify its holding in Ex parte Weeks, 591 So.2d 441 (Ala.1991), at its earliest convenience.