Addington v. State
Addington v. State.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
[1]
The defendant’s application for rehe.ariñg was overruled by this court on October ,19, .1916, during the first month of' the preseht term, and that order is still in the breast of the court and subject to the control of the court. Minto v. State, 9 Ala. App. 95 , 64 South. 369 ; Ex parte Minto, 187 Ala. 671 , 65 South. 516 ; Ex parte Adams, 187 Ala. 10 , 65 South. 514 .
(2j This court,-in view of the suggestion in the opinion of, Justiqe, Sayre, of the Supreme Court, concurred in 'by' Justice Thomas', (Ex parte Addington, 76 South. 6 2
), has le-examiiied the facts as presented by the record in this case, which are set out in the opinions heretofore promulgated by Judge Brown, and reported in 74 South. 846 -861, 3
and all concur that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The order overruling the defendant’s application is therefore set aside and vacated, the application is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment of the criminal court is reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
2
3
Ante, p. 10.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.