Copeland v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 508. |
| Parties | COPELAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Jim Copeland was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A. G. Seay, of Troy, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
By the searching officers a keg containing several gallons of whisky or rum was found concealed under hay, or other débris, in an outhouse across the road, and some distance from appellant's dwelling house.
This court, having read in full, and considered, the entire evidence in this case, have reached the conclusion that the conviction of this appellant upon this evidence was unwarranted, and cannot be permitted to stand. There was no evidence tending in the slightest degree to connect the accused with the possession of the keg and its contents, or to show that he had any knowledge thereof; and the only evidence upon this question is affirmative to the contrary.
We think the evidence hardly sufficient to even raise a suspicion of defendant's guilt, and the general rule must here prevail, which is, if the evidence raises a mere suspicion, or, admitting all it tends to prove defendant's guilt is left in uncertainty, or defendant upon conjecture or probabilities, the court should instruct the jury to acquit. The evidence should be of such character as to overcome, prima facie, the presumption of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to justify a jury in convicting upon it, the circumstances proved must not only be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, but inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and inconsistent with every other rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.
Moreover as stated, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to justify the court in submitting the case to the jury, it must be of such a character as to overcome the presumption of innocence which is evidentiary in its nature, and which attends the accused when upon trial charged with the commission of a criminal offense.
What has been here said is in line with the following authorities Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511, and cases cited.
For the error in refusing to defendant the general affirmative charge, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rounds
... ... or dependent on conjecture, it is insufficient to warrant a ... conviction, and the court should direct a verdict of ... acquittal when requested by the respondent. High v ... State , 2 Okla. Crim. 161, 101 P. 115, 28 L. R. A ... (N. S.) 162; Copeland v. State , 23 Ala.App ... 91, 121 So. 445. See, also, People v ... Bennett , 49 N.Y. 137; People v ... Ledwon , 153 N.Y. 10, 46 N.E. 1046 ... We will ... consider the grounds of the respondent's motion for a ... directed verdict in the order stated: First, ... ...
-
Temple v. State
...all rational conclusions except that of the defendant's guilt. Campbell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 240, 182 So. 89 (1938); Copeland v. State, 23 Ala.App. 91, 121 So. 445 (1929). While nonexclusive possession may raise the suspicion that all occupants had knowledge of the contraband found, a mere......
-
State v. Rounds
...of acquittal when requested by the respondent. High v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 161, 101 P. 115, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102; Copeland v. State, 23 Ala. App. 91, 121 So. 445. See also, People v. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 137; People v. Ledwon, 153 N. Y. 10, 46 N. E. We will consider the grounds of the respond......
-
Barnett v. State, 6 Div. 192.
... ... We have searched ... this record diligently for evidence that would tend to ... connect the defendant with the commission of this crime. Such ... evidence is not in the record, and this defendant was ... entitled to the general affirmative charge." ... See, ... also, Copeland v. State, 23 Ala.App. 91, 121 So ... 445, where the court said: ... "Circumstantial ... evidence to be sufficient to justify a jury in convicting ... upon it, the circumstances proved must not only be consistent ... with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, but ... ...