Abrams v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1908
• Citation: Abrams v. State, 155 Ala. 105, 46 So. 464 (Ala. 1908)
• Parties: ABRAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 464

155 Ala. 105

ABRAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; John T. Lackland, Judge.

Will Abrams was convicted of selling liquor contrary to the law and he appeals.Affirmed.

Defendant filed a plea of misnomer, setting up that his name was "Willis," and not "Will," Abrams.In this connection defendant requested the following charge "The court charges the jury that it is not a question of what name the defendant is known by in Monroe county, or in Wilcox county, but whether he is known as well as 'Will Abrams,' or 'Will Abraham,' as 'Willis Abrams,' irrespective of county line."

The state had elected to prosecute for the sale of liquor made to one Will Willis, and over the objection of the defendantthe state was permitted to show by West McKenzie that he bought liquor from defendant, but limited the evidence solely for the purpose of identifying the defendant.The following charges were refused to defendant: "(2) That the evidence of good character, taken in connection with all the evidence, is sufficient to generate a doubt, and if the jury have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt they should acquit the defendant.(3)The court charges the jury that you are not to consider any sale proven in this case except the one testified about by Will Willis, and the evidence of sale by West McKenzie can only be considered as to the identity of defendant."

J. N. &amp J. B. Miller, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN J.

The court correctly refused to give to the jury the charge, requested by the defendant, on the trial of the issue raised by the plea of misnomer.The misleading tendency of the charge appears to be that the jury might thereby have been impressed that, though in Monroe countyhe was known as named in the indictment, yet, if he was not so known irrespective of county lines, the fact that he was so known in Monroe county was not to be taken as within the issue presented; whereas, if he was known in Monroe county as named in the indictment, the plea could not be said to be sustained.

The admission by the court of the testimony of McKenzie of a purchase of liquor from this defendant on the occasion in question, as limited by the court to the purpose to identify the defendant as the party making the sale for which the prosecution was then in progress, was proper.McIntosh's Case, 140 Ala. 137, 37 So. 223.

After stating a part of the court's oral charge to the jury the bill recites that the "defendant objected to the court's charge as above set out,...