Faulk v. State
| Citation | 59 So. 225,4 Ala.App. 177 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1912 |
| Parties | FAULK v. STATE. |
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; Mike Sollie, Judge.
Grady Faulk was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The language objected to, used by the solicitor in his closing argument, is as follows: "Mr. Lee wants you to return a verdict of not guilty, so that the defendant may be licensed in the illegal sale of whisky for six months more, and the defendant laid off from court, waiting for the court to pass that he might return and have six months more to engage in the illegal sale of whisky."
W. L Lee, of Columbia, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws, and appeals.
1. The evidence tended to show that within six months before the finding of the indictment the defendant sold prohibited liquors; that he left the county during the first week of the court at which the indictment was found and did not return to his home until two weeks after the adjournment of the court. The defendant, it appears from the evidence, was arrested upon his return to his home. The above being the condition of the evidence, the court was free from error in refusing to exclude from the jury those parts of the solicitor's argument to which the defendant objected. The argument of the solicitor did not involve the statement of a fact, but was a mere expression of opinion or argument as an inference to be drawn from the testimony. Treadwell v. State, 168 Ala. 96, 53 So. 290; Peel v. State, 144 Ala. 125, 39 So. 251; Johnston Bros. Co. v. Bentley, 2 Ala. App. 281, 56 So. 742.
2. The only witness for the state was one Lee Fletcher, who testified that he bought the liquor from the defendant, and that one Jess Ward was present. On his cross-examination, in answer to questions put to him by the defendant, the witness testified that "he did not tell Albert Kirkland and others at Watson's bridge, when the grand jury was in session, and when Jess Ward came out there to see him, that he bought the liquor from Jess Ward and did not buy any from Grady Faulk." The above evidence was, of course, adduced for the purpose of impeaching the witness. Two witnesses Albert Kirkland and Eph Oates, testified that they heard the witness Fletcher say that he purchased the liquor from Jess Ward, and not the defendant. The predicate for the impeachment of the witness was laid at Watson's bridge; while the witness Kirkland fixes the place of the conversation at Watson's mill, and the witness Eph Oates at Ward's mill. These witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
...447. Prosecuting attorneys may comment upon evidence and draw such conclusions therefrom as they think proper. Blackwell v. State; Faulk v. State, 59 So. 225; Dunn State, 99 So. 154; Griggs v. State, 109 So. 611. It has been held that the district attorney should be allowed considerable lat......
- Shreve v. State