Bynum v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 314 |
| Citation | 104 So. 834,20 Ala.App. 619 |
| Parties | BYNUM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1925
Appeal from Morgan County Court; W.T. Lowe, Judge.
Clarence Bynum was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Bynum, 104 So. 835.
G.O. Chenault, of Albany, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. The indictment was sufficient as against the demurrers interposed.
It was correctly ruled that the defendant could not state in his own behalf an uncommunicated motive or intention as to the meaning of a certain statement attributed to him concerning his claim to the whisky. Granberry v. State, 182 Ala. 4, 62 So. 52. Nor could another testify as to the state of mind of the defendant as to this matter. Spurlock v. State, 17 Ala.App. 109, 82 So. 557
Anyway the defendant admitted having the liquor in his possession, and it is immaterial as to whether he had previously stated that he was joking when he claimed the whisky. He was guilty of violating the prohibition laws, as charged, under his own admission. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Harbin v. State, 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426.
Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poellnitz v. State
...Ala.App. 109, 82 So. 557; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Hembree v. State, 20 Ala.App. 181, 101 So. 221; Bynum v. State, 20 Ala.App. 619, 104 So. 834. III The record shows that the following transpired at trial during cross-examination of the State's witness, W. O. Garner, C......
-
McDonald v. State
...Ala.App. 109, 82 So. 557; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Hembree v. State, 20 Ala.App. 181, 101 So. 221; Bynum v. State, 20 Ala.App. 619, 104 So. 834; Poellnitz v. State, 48 Ala.App. 144, 262 So.2d Another cross-examination question asked a witness for the State was, 'Had yo......
-
Duncan v. State
... ... automobile at the time charged in the affidavit. Under ... Harbin v. State, 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426; Honeycutt ... v. State, 20 Ala.App. 485, 103 So. 90; Wilson v ... Orr, 210 Ala. 93, 97 So. 133; Gilchrist v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 233, 101 So. 90 6; Bynum v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 619, 104 So. 834; Vaughn v. State ... (Ala.App.) 107 So. 797--the testimony of defendant was ... an admission of the charge for which he was tried, which ... rendered all prior errors harmless ... There ... is no error prejudicial to defendant, and the ... ...
-
Scheuer v. Wise
... ... Ala. Mid. Ry. Co. v. McDonald, ... 112 Ala. 216, 20 So. 472; Southern Ry. Co. v ... Cunningham, 112 Ala. 496, 20 So. 639; Hymes v ... State, 209 Ala. 91, headnote 3, 95 So. 383 ... Mose ... Scheuer and Nathan Scheuer, plaintiffs, and Emil Wise, ... defendant, and one A.J ... ...