Green v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 429 |
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 536,117 So. 607 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W.B. Merrill, Judge.
Henry Green was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
See also, 115 So. 700 and 118 So. ---.
Harvey A. Emerson, of Anniston, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is insisted that the defendant is entitled to the general affirmative charge because the venue was not proven. The ommission to make this proof was not called to the attention of the trial court. The court will not be put in error for a failure to give the general charge on this ground. Circuit Court Rule 35.
A question of more serious import arises in a consideration of defendant's plea of former conviction. The evidence discloses that the defendant was in possession of a gallon of whisky, which he had on his person and of five bottles of whisky which was found in his house all on the same premises and at the same time. There was also evidence of 40 or 50 gallon cans in which whisky had been all of which were in and around his premises. The court ex mero motu charged the jury that the possession of the can of whisky and of the five bottles were two separate and distinct offenses. Under the defendant's plea of a former conviction and the evidence in this case, this in itself constituted reversible error. Under the law the trial judge may not charge upon the effect of the testimony unless required to do so by one of the parties. Code 1923, § 9507.
We do not hold that a person cannot be guilty of two or more possessions of whisky at one and the same time. But we do hold that where the premises are the same and the time is the same, the possession of all the whisky on the premises of which the owner has a guilty knowledge, and of which he has control, is one possession and may not be split up into numerous prosecutions. In the case of Holland v. State, 21 Ala.App. 520, 109 So. 885, which decision was approved in Holland v. State, 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 886, this court said:
"If there was whisky in the smoke house, some just below the house under a log, and a quart lying in the water under a tree, and all of this was in defendant's possession at the same time, there was only one possession."
This case is later affirmed in McMullen v. State (Ala.App.) 116 So. 304.
We see no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
...Crosswhite v. State, 31 Ala.App. 181, 13 So.2d 693 (1943); Landers v. State, 26 Ala.App. 506, 162 So. 550 (1935). In Green v. State, 22 Ala.App. 536, 117 So. 607 (1928), the defendant was tried on several occasions for possession of liquor on the basis of several containers of whisky which ......
-
Smith v. State
...2 So.2d 399." Kilpatrick v. State, 257 Ala. 316, 59 So.2d 61 (1952); Vogel v. State, supra; Free v. State, supra. In Green v. State, 22 Ala.App. 536, 117 So. 607 (1928), the Court of Appeals "We do not hold that a person cannot be guilty of two or more possessions of whisky at one and the s......
-
Campbell v. State
... ... 185; Powell ... v. State, 89 Ala. 172, 8 So. 109; Crosswhite v ... State, Ala.App., 13 So.2d 693; Sanders v ... State, 55 Ala. 42; Hazelton v. State, 13 ... Ala.App. 243, 68 So. 715; Everage v. State, 14 ... Ala.App. 106, 71 So. 983; Savage v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 299, 92 So. 19; Green v. State, 22 Ala.App ... 536, 117 So. 607; Haraway v. State, 22 Ala.App. 553, ... 117 So. 612; Hurst v. State, 24 Ala. 47, 129 So ... 714; Gladden v. State, 24 Ala.App. 188, 132 So. 435; ... Smith v. State, 25 Ala. 339, 146 So. 426 ... Quite ... clearly, the facts averred in the ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
...Zimmerman v. State *1983) , 173 Tenn. 673 122 S.W.2d 436 Puckett v. Commonwealth (1925), 210 Ky. 768, 276 S.W. 811; Green v. State (1928), 22 Ala.App. 536, 117 So. 607. Also cf. Beaman v. State (1940), 69 Okl.Cr. 455, 104 P.2d 260; People v. Von Latta (1968), 258 Cal.App.2d 329, 65 Cal.Rptr. ...