Emerson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 848. |
| Citation | 241 Ala. 141,1 So.2d 605 |
| Parties | EMERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
DeGraffenried & McDuffie, of Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Vardaman, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
The holding of the Court of Appeals that the additional instruction given the jury was free from reversible error upon a consideration of the entire charge is sustained on examination of the record.
The excerpt quoted in the opinion was only a part of the supplemental instruction. The court proceeded at the time to reassert there should be no conviction unless satisfied of guilt from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and further instructed, that if they so found, they need not impose a fine, but in their discretion, could leave the punishment to be fixed by the court. Code of 1923, § 5268.
That the jury was not misled is indicated by the fact that they did not assess a fine, but expressly by their verdict, left the fixing of punishment to the court.
The court having imposed hard labor for the county as a punishment for the offense, there was no error in imposing a further period of hard labor for costs. Code of 1923, § 5291.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alford v. State, 8 Div. 169.
...to justify the refusal of the affirmative charge. Emerson v. State, Ala.App., 1 So.2d 604, certiorari denied by Supreme Court, 241 Ala. 141, 1 So.2d 605. Regarding the remaining insistences of error, as to the examination of certain State's witnesses, we perceive no prejudicial error impose......
-
Stover v. State, 8 Div. 57
...5, 200 So. 637, certiorari denied 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 640; Emerson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 89, 1 So.2d 604, certiorari denied 241 Ala. 141, 1 So.2d 605; Wilson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 126, 3 So.2d 136, certiorari denied 241 Ala. 528, 3 So.2d From the evidence submitted and the inferences reas......
-
Dixon v. State, 8 Div. 934
...5, 200 So. 637, certiorari denied 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 640; Emerson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 89, 1 So.2d 604, certiorari denied 241 Ala. 141, 1 So.2d 605; 6 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law Elmore v. State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 109 So. 114, states the law as to both distilling and possession in this ......
-
Adkins v. State, 7 Div. 380
...guilty scienter may be established by circumstantial evidence, Emerson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 89, 1 So.2d 604; certiorari denied 241 Ala. 141, 1 So.2d 605, and that a charge of unlawful possession of prohibited liquors may be sustained upon circumstantial evidence, just as can any other crim......