MITCHELL v. STATE

(107 So. 734) MITCHELL v. STATE. (8 Div. 331.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. March 23, 1926.) Criminal law <@^oI044, 1063(4). Sufficiency of evidence to justify conviction cannot be reviewed, in absence of request for affirmative charge or application for new trial. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Etaralson; Judge. DeWitt Mitchell was convicted of bigamy, and he appeals. Affirmed. Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant. Counsel argue the insufficiency of the evidence and cite Beggs v. State, 55 Ala. 108; 7 C. J. 1170; 26 Cyc. 840. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. There was no request for the affirmative charge, or motion for a new trial. Hence the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented for review. [MAJORITY — SAMFORD, J.] SAMFORD, J. Appellant’s counsel argues very ably and convincingly in brief that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a conviction under the indictment, but nowhere in the record is the question raised in 'such manner as calls fer a review of the court’s action in the matter. The affirmative charge is not requested, nor is there an application for a new trial. The rulings of the court, as they appear in the record, are free from error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. <g==>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes