Coats v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 615 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 261,257 Ala. 406 |
| Parties | COATS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Thos. M. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition.
Harold T. Pounders, Florence, opposed.
It is our view that the dissenting opinion recognizes the correct interpretation of the question here involved. Appellant was on trial for a criminal charge of having in his possession a still suitable for use in the manufacture of prohibited liquor (not to be exact in this statement of the charge).
The statute, Title 29, § 132, Code of Alabama, 1940, provides that the unexplained possession of any part of such an appliance is prima facie evidence of a violation of that statute. The statement of the solicitor by reason of which the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction was in the nature of an inquiry of the jury in his argument as follows: 'Has his possession of that part of the still been explained to you sufficiently?'
On account of the trial court's charge to the jury in sustaining defendant's objection to the aforesaid inquiry it was considered by the Court of Appeals that the solicitor's inquiry was a comment concerning the defendant's failure to testify and, therefore, it was reversible error for the court to deny a motion for a new trial on account of that inquiry by the solicitor notwithstanding the fact that the court sustained the motion of defendant to exclude it from the jury. The court was explicit in explaining to the jury that no comment should be made with respect to the failure of the defendant to testify.
The Act of June 23, 1949, Acts 1949, p. 150, undertook to amend Title 15, § 305, of the 1940 Code, which prohibits the solicitor from commenting on the failure of the defendant to testify, and is to the effect that if he does make any such comment a new trial must be granted on motion filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment.
For the purposes of this case, we think it is unnecessary to consider the effect of that amendment. This is for the reason that we think the comment quoted above is not such as is prohibited by law.
Attention is called to that feature of Title 29, § 132, supra, which makes the unexplained possession of any part of such a still prima facie evidence of a violation of law. Section 305, as amended must be construed in pari materia with section 132, supra. There are several situations in legal procedure whereby the defendant in a criminal case must explain them to be consistent with his innocence, and sometimes the law places upon the defendant the burden of proving some defense when the law itself puts such burden upon the defendant as when he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. It has never been supposed that such legal requirement infringes any constitutional right of the defendant. The burden of proof on the State is legal not constitutional and is subject to change by law.
This theory is illustrated in the law of larceny, as follows: Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142, 143. It is sometimes stated that such unexplained possession is prima facie evidence of guilt, and it is very often stated that the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods raises a presumption of guilt. But in the Orr case it was observed that the safest rule, and that of the best considered cases, is to leave it to the jury to say whether the unexplained possession of goods recently stolen satisfies them of the guilt of the defendant. It seems that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eldridge v. State
...Ala.App. 147, 148, 155 So.2d 533 (1963). This statutory inference does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261 (1952). See also United States v. McGlamory, 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971). There is a manifest distinction between the burden of ......
-
Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 731
... ... * * * " ... While the court used the phrase "a presumption of guilt," our later cases use the term, "inference of guilt." ... We think on authority of Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220, Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142, and Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261, there was no error in charging the jury as the trial court did in the instant case ... In Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220, the appellant appealed his larceny conviction and there we stated: ... "The recent, actual, unexplained possession of ... ...
-
Williams v. State
...the usual course in that court's trend. We hold that the defendant's objection was not well taken (Taylor, supra; Welch, supra; Coats, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261). Moreover, considering the paucity of authority against it in the Supreme Court, we believe that no matter what the prosecuting ......
-
Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 131
...by trial judges in setting forth an appropriate oral charge to the jury. See Hale v. State, 45 Ala.App. 97, 225 So.2d 787; Coates v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261, and cases In dealing with the issue of the remoteness of time as affecting the recent possession of the appellant, we note ......