Dozier v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1920
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 625
• Citation: 88 So. 54,17 Ala.App. 609
• Parties: DOZIER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

88 So. 54

17 Ala.App. 609

DOZIER v. STATE.

4 Div. 625

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 22, 1920

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Henry Dozier was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and appeals. Affirmed.

McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

In brief, counsel for appellant insists that the trial court committed reversible error, in that, after the jury retired to consider its verdict, within a few minutes thereafter, the court went to the jury room with counsel for the state and defendant, and opened the door to the jury room, and standing just within the door, and in the presence of counsel, and with the defendant sitting just outside the door and in hearing of what was said, gave to the jury the following instructions:

"There is one rule of law, gentlemen, that I neglected to give you. That is this: When a man is charged with the commission of a felony similar to the one with which this defendant is charged, the law says that he who aids or abets another in the commission of that felony is guilty as if he were the principal actor. To aid means to offer any sort of assistance, no matter how slight or small, and to abet is to stand by and encourage the other, or be ready to render assistance in the event assistance is called for."

This action of the court is not shown by the bill of exceptions but does appear in the transcript. The action of the court while informal and perhaps tends to create less respect for the dignity of the court, which at all times should be maintained, would not, we think, constitute reversible error, even if properly presented for review, which is not the case here. Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 202 Ala. 606, 81 So. 548; Sov. Camp W.O.W. v. Wallace, 16 Ala.App. 617, 80 So. 691.

All of the exceptions to the testimony of the witness Mooneyham were reduced by the court to this:

"The statement by the witness, to the effect that he had been to the place in question before, and found some beer there, is admissible, and may stay in evidence. But any reference by said witness to any other time he had been to the place in question prior to the time it is alleged the defendant was found making whisky is not admissible, and is excluded from the record."

This was not error, but was relevant to show a preparation on the part of somebody...