Allen v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 380. |
| Citation | 92 So. 18,18 Ala.App. 346 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
John Allen was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. J Hooton, of Roanoke, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment contained two counts. Demurrers were interposed to the second count. This count meets every requirement of the statute, and the demurrers were properly overruled. The defendant was convicted "as charged in the indictment," and was duly sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary of not less than 2 years nor more than 3 1/2 years.
This court, sitting en banc, has read the entire record, and as a whole have considered this case and have reached the conclusion that the evidence adduced upon the trial presented a jury question; therefore the refusal of the affirmative charge requested by defendant in writing was without error. Smith v. State, 16 Ala. App. 546, 79 So. 802.
No other special charges were refused, nor was there any exception reserved to the oral charge of the court. There was no motion made for a new trial, and the remaining questions presented relate to the ruling of the court upon the testimony. Witness Lane, the sheriff, testified that he searched the premises of defendant, and the solicitor asked him: "What did you find?" To this question the defendant objected, but the objection was general, no grounds being stated, and for this reason, if for no other, the court properly overruled same the general rule being that, where a question calls for competent evidence, it is not subject to a general objection. It is clear that the evidence called for was competent. The motion to exclude the answer was made without stating the grounds of the motion, and the court properly overruled same. The answer of the witness was responsive to the question and was material, he having stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Espey v. State
...the motion to exclude and the rule is that a motion to exclude without stating the grounds therefor is properly overruled. Allen v. State, 18 Ala.App. 346, 92 So. 18; Bell v. State, 19 Ala.App. 169, 95 So. However, this rule cannot be applied here because of the stipulation entered into ear......
-
Ex parte Maxwell
...overruled. Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669, 120 So.2d 904 (1960); Bell v. State, 19 Ala.App. 169, 95 So. 784 (1923); Allen v. State, 18 Ala.App. 346, 92 So. 18 (1922). In Bell and Allen the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's actions overruling the motion to exclude evidence because the ......
- Bradford v. State
-
Southerland v. State
... ... The ... court properly admitted testimony tending to prove that ... defendant had in his possession, at the time the still parts ... were found on his premises, an unusual amount of sugar, the ... same being a part of the res gestae. Allen v. State, ... 18 Ala.App. 346, 92 So. 18 ... It was ... competent for the sheriff, after qualifying, to testify that ... the articles found were suitable to be used in the ... manufacture of whisky. Wilson v. State, 211 Ala ... 574, 100 So. 917 ... Refused ... charge 13 ... ...