Opinion · Alabama Court of Appeals
Williams v. State
23 Ala. App. 387
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Alabama Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Alabama
- Date
- 1930-01-14
- Topic
- litigation
SAMFORD, J. 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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
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.