26 Ala. App. 615 159 So. 888

159 So. 888

Freeman ALLEN v. STATE.

4 Div. 103.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 18, 1934.

Brassell & Rowe, of Troy, for appellant.

*616Thos. E. Knight, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE, Judge.

The evidence pointing toward the guilt of appellant was all of a circumstantial nature. We have read it and carefully considered it.

It would seem that no good purpose could be served by summarizing, setting out, or narrating the testimony.

As we said in the opinion in the case of Guilford v. State, 20 Ala. App. 625, 104 So. 678, a case, by "she way, where the incriminatory tendencies of the evidence were as strong as those exhibited by the bill of exceptions in the instant case, we repeat, as applicable here, to wit: “While it is possible under the evidence for the defendant to be guilty, yet we are of the opinion that the evidence falls short of meeting the degree of proof required in criminal cases; and the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial.” And see, as illustrative of the reasons for our holding, the eases collected and cited in the excellent brief filed here on behalf of appellant.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Allen v. State
26 Ala. App. 615 159 So. 888

Case Details

Name
Allen v. State
Decision Date
Dec 18, 1934
Citations

26 Ala. App. 615

159 So. 888

Jurisdiction
Alabama

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!