Brasher v. State, 7 Div. 145

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
Citation107 So. 727,21 Ala.App. 309
Docket Number7 Div. 145
Decision Date23 March 1926

107 So. 727

21 Ala.App. 309


7 Div. 145

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 23, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; E.S. Lyman, Judge.

Charlie Brasher was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Leeper, Wallace & Saxon, of Columbiana, for appellant.

[21 Ala.App. 310] Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


Appellant was charged in separate counts in an indictment with, first distilling, etc., prohibited liquors; and, second, having possession, etc., of a still, etc., to be used in the manufacture of prohibited liquors.

There was a general verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. No evidence being contained in the record to support the first count of the indictment, it was error to refuse the general affirmative charge in his favor as to said count, duly requested by appellant. Winchester v. State, 102 So. 595, 20 Ala.App. 431.

The opinion in the case of Carr v. State, 85 So. 852, 17 Ala.App. 539, is a direct authority for our holding, and we do hold, that the admission in evidence of the testimony of the witness Buckner as to the statements in the nature of admissions of guilt made by the defendant at or about the time of his arrest was error. As stated in the Carr Case, supra, a proper predicate for the admission of this testimony required that it be first shown that none of those present, and here there were shown to be several, offered defendant any inducements, or made threats, etc., to get him to make the statement testified about.

The other questions presented involve no principles of law that have not been many times announced and gone over by this court,. and will probably not arise in their present form on another trial. Hence a discussion of them here will be pretermitted.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Jackson v. State, 3 Div. 880.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1947
    ...of a substantial right of review. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404; Hawes v. State, 216 Ala. 151, 112 So. 761; Brasher v. State, 21 Ala.App. 309, 107 So. 727. We pass now to a consideration of the question of whether or not the court erred in refusing the general affirmative charge ......
  • Murchinson v. State, 5 Div. 111.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1940
    ...duly requested by defendant, that they could not convict defendant under the third count for the larceny of the money. Brasher v. State, 21 Ala.App. 309, 107 So. 727; Dorsey v. State, Ala. 553, 33 So. 350; Walling v. Fields, 209 Ala. 389, 96 So. 471." (Italics supplied by us.) The fault wit......
  • Moore v. State, 5 Div. 287
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 1950 of a presented question. Hawes v. State, 216 Ala. 151, 112 So. 761; Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404; Brasher v. State, 21 Ala.App. 309, 107 So. 727; Jackson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 42, 31 So.2d 514, certiorari denied 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d As we pointed out in the recent case ......
  • Erskine v. State, 8 Div. 306
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 23, 1926
    ...affidavit or complaint against him, and, notwithstanding his environment at the time of his arrest, the usual presumption of innocence [21 Ala.App. 309] attended the accused which the law provides in all criminal cases. Reversed and remanded. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT