Aldridge v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 532 |
| Citation | 20 Ala.App. 456,102 So. 785 |
| Parties | ALDRIDGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; George F. Smoot, Judge.
Jim Aldridge was convicted of possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Saxon & Pitts, of Clanton, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment is in the usual form, charging the defendant with having in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance, device, or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, or malt liquors, contrary to law. There was demurrer to the indictment on several grounds, but we have so often held similar indictments to be sufficient as not here to require discussion. Taylor v. State, 17 Ala.App. 579, 88 So. 205; Barnes v. State, 18 Ala.App. 344, 92 So. 15.
The finding and return of an indictment does not constitute former jeopardy, and, hence, the defendant's motion to quash the indictment was properly overruled, and the state's demurrer to the plea setting up the fact of the return of an indictment was properly sustained.
All of the facts and circumstances, conversations at the still, at the time of the possession and related thereto, were a part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence. The court so ruled without error.
Charge L is never a good charge, unless predicated on circumstantial evidence. McKenzie v. State, 19 Ala.App. 319, 97 So. 155.
The other refused charges, where they stated correct propositions of law, were fairly and fully covered by the court in his oral charge to the jury.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 5 Div. 357
...charged in the indictment. Ganus v. State, 19 Ala.App. 286, 97 So. 117; Whitehead v. State, 20 Ala.App. 95, 101 So. 70; Aldridge v. State, 20 Ala.App. 456, 102 So. 785; Gann v. State, 22 Ala.App. 65, 112 So. 178; Pruitt v. State, 22 Ala.App. 113, 113 So. 316; Traffenstedt v. State, 34 Ala.A......
-
Sherman v. State
...in evidence as a part of the res gestae. This included, of course, proof relating to the gasoline, jugs, cans, etc. Aldridge v. State, 20 Ala.App. 456, 102 So. 785; Pruitt v. State, 22 Ala.App. 113, 113 So. 316; Gann v. State, 22 Ala.App. 65, 112 So. 178; Carr v. State, 21 Ala.App. 299, 107......
-
Smith v. State
...Subsec. 76, Code 1940; Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249; Neville v. State, 23 Ala.App. 121, 123 So. 895; Aldridge v. State, 20 Ala.App. 456, 102 So. 785. The state anchored its prosecution on the testimony of the two officers who raided the still. According to their testimony t......
-
Clark v. State
...charged in the indictment. Ganus v. State, 19 Ala.App. 286, 97 So. 117; Whitehead v. State, 20 Ala.App. 95, 101 So. 70; Aldridge v. State, 20 Ala.App. 456, 102 So. 785; Gann v. State, 22 Ala.App. 65, 112 So. 178; Pruitt v. State, 22 Ala.App. 113, 113 So. Appellant's counsel sought to show b......