Elmore v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 349 |
| Parties | ELMORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; N.D. Denson, Judge.
Mack Elmore was convicted of manufacturing whisky and possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Elmore v. State, 109 So. 114.
J.G. Rankin, of Athens, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
We have held in many cases that the mere presence of a person at a still was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attends a defendant charged with, and who is on trial for, a criminal offense. Biddle v. State, 19 Ala.App. 563, 99 So. 59; Biddle v. State, 20 Ala.App. 49, 100 So. 572. This general statement, while still adhered to, cannot be so extended as to invade the province of the jury in passing upon the guilt or innocence of a defendant, whose acts or conduct raises other presumptions tending to connect him with the manufacture of whisky or the possession of a still. Wherever a defendant is shown to be present at a still, any fact or circumstance, however slight, tending to show participation either as a principal or as aider or abettor may authorize the jury to find a verdict of guilt which will not be disturbed on appeal. In this case there was evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant was a principal, and the general charge was properly refused.
There was evidence justifying a conviction under either count of the indictment, and hence the general charge as to either count was properly refused.
The comment of the solicitor was an answer to an argument of defendant, and hence was free from error.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
German v. State
...or as aider or abettor may authorize the jury to find a verdict of guilt which will not be disturbed on appeal." Elmore v. State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 411, 109 So. 114 (1926). See also Coleman v. State, 394 So.2d 82, 85 Here, the jury could reasonably infer the defendant's involvement and parti......
-
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yeldell
...are very liberal in allowing argument when it comes under this characterization. Hines v. Paden, 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; Elmore v. State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 109 So. 114; Gilliland v. R. G. Dunn & Co., 136 Ala. 327, 34 So. 25; Hanners v. State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 So. 973; Barney v. State, 5 Ala.......
- Mitchell v. State
-
York v. State
... ... appears that the statement about which complaint is urged was ... made in response to some assertion appellant's counsel ... had previously made in argument. Under these circumstances ... wide latitude should be afforded to the reply. Hines v ... Paden, 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; Elmore v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 109 So. 114; Hanners v ... State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 So. 973; Barney v ... State, 5 Ala.App. 302, 57 So. 598; Roden v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 193, 58 So. 74; McQueen v ... Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. 440; Walker v. State, ... Ala.App., 36 So.2d 117 ... ...