Edge v. State, 7 Div. 112
| Decision Date | 08 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 112 |
| Citation | 54 So.2d 312,36 Ala.App. 87 |
| Parties | EDGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Roy D. McCord and Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Thos. M. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This charge was refused to defendant: 'The Court charges the jury if you or any one of you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty then it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty.'
In the lower court the accused was convicted of the offense of possessing prohibited liquors.
The deputy sheriff testified that while he was hidden near the residence of appellant the latter and a Negro man drove to the rear of the home in separate cars. The appellant stood near by and the Negro unloaded a large quantity of whiskey from each of the automobiles. Practically all of the liquor was placed in a 'manhole' under the residence. Both parties then departed in the cars, and the deputy also left to secure a search warrant. He returned in about twenty minutes with other officers and found the whiskey in the indicated location.
The accused disclaimed any knowledge of the whiskey and denied that he was present when it was placed under his home.
It is evincingly clear that in this state of the evidence the defendant was not due the general affirmative charge.
The officer's delineation of the processes employed by the Megro man in unloading the whiskey from the cars and placing it in the manhole constituted a part of the res gestae. According to the deputy's testimony, at this time the edfendant stood near by. McGee v. State, 25 Ala.App. 361, 146 So. 628; Vincent v. State, 20 Ala.App. 637, 104 So. 686.
Besides the general affirmative charge, there was one other unnumbered charge which was refused to the defendant. The latter instruction is not based on the evidence and was properly refused. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Knighten v. State, Ala.App., 49 So.2d 789.
It is otherwise faulty. Andrews v. State, 134 Ala. 47, 32 So. 665; Goldsmith v. State, 105 Ala. 8, 16 So. 933; Outler v. State, 147 Ala. 39, 41 So. 460; Harper v. State, 8 Ala.App. 346, 63 So. 23.
There are other questions presented for our review, but they relate to familiar and well-established rules of law. A discussion of them would be of no value.
The judgment below is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.
We are mindful of the duty imposed on the appellate courts to search the entire record for error in criminal cases.
For practical purposes and to avoid unduly lengthy opinions, we often omit to discuss questions which have no semblance of merit.
When we prepared the original opinion in this cause we applied this practice with reference to the action of the court in sustaining demurrers to appellant's motion to the indictment.
We followed the same course in relation to the insistence that the judgment was incomplete.
In brief on application for rehearing counsel express surprise and apparent disappointment because we did not treat these matters.
The motion to the indictment attempts to impose the defense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commons v. State, 6 Div. 127
... ... Written refused charge number 1 was approved by this court in Davis v. State, 7 Ala.App. 122, 61 So. 483. On the authority of Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d 422, we ... ...
-
Edge v. State
...Wallace Edge for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Edge v. State, 54 So.2d 312. Writ LIVINGSTON, C. J., and FOSTER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. ...
- Shealey v. State, 7 Div. 111