Copeland v. State, 7 Div. 247

Decision Date02 February 1937
Docket Number7 Div. 247
Citation27 Ala.App. 405,173 So. 407
PartiesCOPELAND v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J.H. Disque, Jr., Judge.

Joe Copeland was convicted of distilling and possessing a still and he appeals.

Affirmed.

L.B Rainey, of Gadsden, for appellant.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The indictment was in two counts. One count charged the manufacturing of whisky and the second charged the unlawful possession of a still, etc. The verdict was general and referable to either count.

The evidence for the State was positive and tended to prove every fact necessary to establish the corpus delicti and to connect this defendant with the commission of the offense. The evidence for the defendant was to the contrary so far as it tended to connect the defendant with the crime, but under proper instructions from the court these questions were properly submitted to the jury and hence the court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant the general affirmative charge, as requested in writing.

The witness, McCreless, was duly qualified as to his familiarity with stills, beer, and whisky, so that he might testify that a liquid found in barrels at the still was beer, and was the kind of beer from which whisky was made. This was a fact descriptive of the beer found at the still then being operated by the defendant, and was relevant. Catrett v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311, 97 So. 124.

That the witness, McCreless, saw several persons other than the defendant at or around or in close proximity of the still, was perhaps immaterial, it not being shown that these other parties were in any way connected with the defendant. Such evidence could not have injuriously affected this defendant.

Some objection is made to the testimony of the witness, McCreless it being contended that he was not qualified to testify as an expert. On this point it was testified to by the witness: "That he knows how whiskey is manufactured." Also, that witness said, "He had had considerable experience in raiding places, that he had been a Deputy Sheriff about five (5) years, that he has raided about two or three hundred stills, that he had occasion to observe, or examine or smell this beverage beer out of which whiskey is distilled." This testimony qualified the witness to testify that the still was complete and in operation; that the beer being distilled was such beer as is usually used; and that the product coming from the still was whisky. To authorize the witness to testify as an expert it must appear that by study, practice, experience, or observation as to the particular subject inquired about that he has knowledge beyond that of an ordinary person. Cochran v. State, 20 Ala.App. 109, 101 So. 73. In this case, the evidence tends to show that the witness had such knowledge. The State was allowed over the objection of defendant to prove in what manner the arrest of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Raborn
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1937
    ... ... 31 FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK v. RABORN. 1 Div. 958Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 25, 1937 ... the State of Alabama, as authorized by the Agricultural Code ... of ... the same effect are Adams v. McMillan, 7 Port ... 73, Jenkins v. Harrison, 66 Ala. [345] 360, ... ...
  • Territory Hawai`i v. Legaspi
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1953
    ...is applicable to all witnesses. (United States v. Buck, 23 F. Supp. 503; Underwood v. State, 239 Ala. 29, 193 So. 155; Copeland v. State, 27 Ala. App. 405, 173 So. 407;People v. Zirbes, 6 Cal. [2d] 425, 57 P. [2d] 1319; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 160 P. [2d] 987; Barkley v. State, 152 F......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1953
    ...for the purpose of manufacturing whiskey. Traffenstedt v. State, supra; Weeks v. State, 21 Ala.App. 397, 109 So. 117; Copeland v. State, 27 Ala.App. 405, 173 So. 407. During the cross examination of one of the officers the record 'Q. Did you know this boy, Jack, here (indicating), before th......
  • Nugent v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 1938
    ...181 So. 707 28 Ala.App. 182 NUGENT v. STATE. 8 Div. 443.Court of Appeals of AlabamaFebruary 22, 1938 ... Rehearing ... parts going to make up a whole. Copeland v. State, ... 27 Ala.App. 405, 173 So. 407; Arrington v. State, 24 ... ...
  • 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