Freeman v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 896 |
| Citation | 111 So. 188,21 Ala.App. 629 |
| Parties | FREEMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; James E. Horton, Judge.
Tom Freeman was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A.A Griffith, of Cullman, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
This court cannot undertake to reconcile the conflicting testimony of witnesses on the trial or to weigh the evidence, except in such cases where the great and overwhelming weight of the evidence convinces the court that the verdict was the result of influences not properly considered. In this case the evidence was in conflict and its truth or falsity was properly left to the jury. The general charge as to the second count was properly refused.
The court, at the request of defendant, gave the general charge as to the first count of the indictment charging manufacture of whisky. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. This verdict is referable to the good count in the indictment charging the unlawful possession of a still. Watson v State, 20 Ala.App. 372, 102 So. 492.
In describing the articles found at the still, it was relevant to show that there was an empty meal sack there with the defendant's name written on it. The mash or beer found at the still was made from meal and other ingredients and the presence of an empty meal sack was a circumstance from which the jury might infer that the beer was made from the meal that had been in the sack and in conjunction with evidence of the presence at the still might have been the subject of further inference. The name on the sack was descriptive of the sack and might have become the subject of an explanatory charge from the court, but did not constitute reversible error.
The questions asked the witness Calvert, as to what the other deputy (Williams) had said regarding defendant's being present at the still, all called for hearsay testimony. Objections to these questions were properly sustained.
It was relevant and proper to show that the deputies were at the still on Wednesday before the arrest of defendant on Thursday, and that defendant came to the still on that day as tending to prove the defendant's knowledge and possession of the still. Watson v. State, supra.
The meal sack found at the still was collateral matter which could be proven without the physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. State
...of the evidence convinces the court that the verdict was the result of influences not properly considered." Freeman v. State, 21 Ala.App. 629, 630, 111 So. 188, 189 (1927). Here, the jury unravelled the complex emotional testimony in the case at bar and concluded either that the defendant w......
-
Fuller v. State
...229 Ala. 674, 159 So. 209; Glover v. State, 25 Ala.App. 423, 148 So. 160, certiorari denied 226 Ala. 578, 148 So. 161; Freeman v. State, 21 Ala.App. 629, 111 So. 188; Skinner v. State, 22 Ala.App. 457, 116 So. 806; McKenzie v. State, 25 Ala.App. 586, 151 So. 619; 7 Ala.Dig., Criminal Law, k......
-
Robinson v. State
...and no explanation is offered, a prima facie case is made out that he was in the unlawful possession of a complete still. Freeman v. State, 21 Ala.App. 629, 111 So. 188. In such a case a jury, weighing the whole evidence, may find the defendant guilty as charged. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala.App......
-
Nugent v. State
...no explanation is offered, a prima facie case is made out that he was in the unlawful possession of a complete still. Freeman v. State, 21 Ala. App. 629, 111 So. 188. such a case a jury, weighing the whole evidence, may find the defendant guilty as charged. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala.App. 12, ......