Gipson v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1926
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 340
• Citation: Gipson v. State, 107 So. 327, 21 Ala.App. 277 (Ala. App. 1926)
• Parties: GIPSON et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

107 So. 327

21 Ala.App. 277

GIPSON et al. v. STATE.

8 Div. 340

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 16, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Murl Gipson and Alva Potts were convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquor and possessing a still, and they appeal.Affirmed.

Watts &amp White, of Huntsville, for appellants.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

RICE J.

It is true, as set out in the brief filed on behalf of appellants on this appeal, that a person charged with the violation of the prohibition law is entitled to the same consideration as one charged with any other crime, and that the courts cannot permit convictions to stand, unless the state meets the required burden of proof; also that proof is insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, if the conduct of the accused is, upon a reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence; also that every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent, and that this presumption attends the accused until his guilt has been legally proven; also that in order to convict the defendant of possessing a still the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in possession of a complete still which could be used for the manufacture of liquor (prohibited); also that every material ingredient of the offense charged in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.But none nor all of these neatly stated legal principles can avail the appellants here.

In the first place, it appears that nothing inconsistent with the same was given in charge by the learned...