Brewer v. State
Decision Date | 09 April 1929 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 758. |
Parties | BREWER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Franklin County; B. H. Sargent Judge.
Henry Brewer was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H. H. Hamilton, of Russellville, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted upon an affidavit or complaint which charged him with a violation of the prohibition law, by selling to state witnesses Quinn and Entriken one pint of whisky.
The evidence adduced upon the trial was in conflict and was for the jury, and the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused rested with the jury under all the facts as shown by the evidence in the case.
We have given careful and attentive consideration to the merits of the points of decision relied upon to effect a reversal of the judgment of conviction appealed from, which are properly presented. Where there is any evidence tending to make out a case against a person accused of the commission of a criminal offense, and where the trial, as here, is had before a jury it is not within the province of this court, or of the court below, to pass upon the important question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, this is for the jury alone. But every person accused of crime, and upon trial therefor is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, free from injurious error, and no person should be pronounced guilty and punished except in the mode and manner provided by law. As was said in the case of Patterson v. State, 202 Ala. 65, 68, 79 So. 459, 462:
Over timely and insistent objections and exceptions of defendant the state was allowed to prove by its witness Jeff Entriken numerous facts and circumstances wholly irrelevant, illegal and inadmissible; notably the conversation had between said witness and witness Quinn, which took place in Russellville, the defendant not being present but admittedly several miles away at his home when the conversation occurred. The record shows, over the objections and exceptions aforesaid, that the following occurred in this connection:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Robinson, Bankruptcy No. 95-71118-TBB-7. Adversary No. 96-00525.
...ruled upon by an Alabama court other than its Supreme Court. See Atkins v. State, 27 Ala.App. 212, 169 So. 330 (1936); Brewer v. State, 23 Ala.App. 116, 121 So. 689 (1929). 2. Where You Can And May (i) Consistency Of Federal-State Holdings Is this true in a federal court? In diversity juris......
-
State ex rel. Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Rosskopf
... ... of Appeals, and having gauged their methods of procedure and ... acquired rights pursuant thereto, should not now be divested ... of the rights thus obtained in following the methods of ... procedure therein outlined. State ex rel. May Department ... Stores v. Haid, 38 S.W.2d 53; Brewer v. State, ... 121 So. 689; Douglas v. Pike County, 101 U.S. 677, ... 25 L.Ed. 971; Mountain Grove Bank v. Douglas County, ... 146 Mo. 42; Klocke v. Klocke, 276 Mo. 572; ... Kelley v. Rhoads, 75 Am. St. Rep. 906; ... Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical ... Installation Co., 234 U.S ... ...
-
Richardson v. State, 6 Div. 248.
... ... 381, 77 So. 914; Barber v ... State, 23 Ala. App. 584, 129 So. 492; Harris v ... State, 17 Ala.App. 542, 86 So. 144; Campbell v ... State, 18 Ala.App. 219, 90 So. 43; Presley v ... State, 26 Ala.App. 280, 158 So. 765; Scott v ... State, 22 Ala.App. 383, 115 So. 855; Brewer v ... State, 23 Ala.App. 116, 121 So. 689; McMahan v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 522, 109 So. 553; Davis v ... State, 20 Ala. App. 131, 101 So. 171 ... The ... court erred in allowing the State to offer evidence tending ... to show that the defendant attempted to compromise the case ... ...
-
Smithson v. State
... ... of the latter may be, and the refusal of a lower court to ... follow an applicable rule of law pronounced by an appellate ... court is reversible error. The following enumerated ... authorities plainly support that proposition: Brewer v ... State, 23 Ala.App. 116, 121 So. 689; Davis v ... Clausen, 7 Ala.App. 381, 383, 62 So. 267; ... Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Dean, 17 Ala.App ... 253, 84 So. 419; Arcless Contact Co. v. General Electric ... Co., 2 Cir., 87 F.2d 340; Jacoby v. Missouri Valley ... Drainage ... ...