Arthur v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 277. |
| Citation | 19 Ala.App. 311,97 So. 158 |
| Parties | ARTHUR v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; S. F. Hobbs, Judge.
Andrew Arthur was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Pitts & Leva, of Selma, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment contained two counts, the first count charging the defendant with distilling or making alcoholic liquor; the second count charging that the defendant had in his possession a still, etc.
The court gave the general affirmative charge for the defendant as to the first count, and the jury's verdict was:
"We the jury find the defendant guilty of distilling as charged in the second count of the indictment."
The evidence for the state tended to show that defendant had a pasture on the plantation of one Kirkpatrick in Dallas county, that the defendant was in the pasture within a few yards of a tub, a trough with some mash in it, and one or two little cans or buckets such as are used for dipping water. There was wet meal found in the trough. There were some ashes where fire had been.
The defendant's wagon and horses were just outside the pasture on the road which crossed the pasture fence. There was in the wagon some kindling, an axe, a sack, and three one-gallon cans. The defendant introduced no evidence.
It is insisted by counsel for appellant that there was no evidence that the defendant was in possession of a still or any part of a still. It was a question for the jury to determine whether the tub and the trough found constituted a part or parts of a still or device, or substitute therefor, to be used in the manufacture of prohibited liquors, and they could consider all the surrounding circumstances in evidence in reaching a conclusion on this point.
It is a well-settled rule that a confession is not admissible until the corpus delicti is first proven. But if any facts are shown from which the jury may reasonably infer that the crime has been committed, any other evidence tending to implicate the accused is thereby rendered admissible.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187; Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 South. 868; 16 Corpus Juris, § 1514, p. 737.' "Arthur v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311, 312, 97 So. 158, 159 (1923). See also Ratliff v. State, 212 Ala. 410, 412, 102 So. 621, 623 Howell v. State, 571 So.2d 396, 397 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). ......
-
Borza v. State
...Md. 463, 97 A.2d 303) supra; State v. Traufer, 109 Mont. 275, 97 P.2d 336; Ryan v. United States, 8 Civ., 99 F.2d 864; Arthur v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311, 97 So. 158.' As to the second and very distinct proposition, Wharton is simply pointing out that one of the elements of the crime of arson......
-
Bollinger v. State
...supra; Davis v. State, supra; State v. Traufer, 109 Mont. 275, 97 P.2d 336; Ryan v. United States, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 864; Arthur v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311, 97 So. 158. Appellants contend that the evidence submitted to establish the corpus delicti was not sufficient and was not compatible with......
-
Barger v. State, 6 Div. 540.
...... met its burden to prove to the jury's satisfaction beyond. a reasonable doubt that the [34 Ala.App. 65] crime charged. had been committed and that the accused was the criminal. agent in its commission. Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444, 93. [37 So.2d 238.] . So. 460; Arthur v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311, 97 So. 158. . . . Appellant further contends that the court erred in the. admission of appellant's confession because the same. contained allusions to other offenses, which ground. accompanied appellant's objection to the admission of the. confession, ......