Grimmett v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 952. |
| Citation | 152 So. 262,26 Ala.App. 56 |
| Parties | GRIMMETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1933.
Reversed on Mandate Jan. 16, 1934.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.
Bennett E. Grimmett was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
Reversed on mandate.
Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Grimmett v. State (7 Div. 212) 152 So. 263.
J. J. Cockrell, of Talladega, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
A scintilla of evidence going to support the state's contention necessitates reference of issue raised thereby to the jury for decision, at least in first instance. See Norwood Hospital v. Brown, 219 Ala. 445, 122 So. 411.
The above statement of the law disposes of the main question in this case-whether or not appellant was entitled to have the jury given at his request the general affirmative charge to find in his favor.
Manifestly, from only a casual reading of the testimony, there was a scintilla, or more, of evidence pointing to his guilt.
Appellant's capable and resourceful counsel argues at great length that he (appellant) should somehow be discharged, because of the disgraceful and criminal conduct of one of the arresting officers in "beating appellant over the head," etc. But it is not within our province to "set one crime off against another."
When the pardoning power is advised of the action mentioned, the "chances are" that power will promptly set appellant free.
As for the court, it, in the discharge of its duty, after thoroughly and carefully examining the record of the trial etc., can find presented no prejudicially erroneous ruling.
And the judgment of conviction must be, and is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Opinion after Remandment.
We are unable, from a careful reading of the testimony, and hence unwilling, to say that there was more than the "smallest trace"-"the least particle"-of testimony in this case pointing to the guilt of appellant.
It results that, according to the opinion of the Supreme Court on certiorari, we must hold, as we hereby do, that it was error to refuse to appellant his duly requested written affirmative charge, etc. Code 1923, § 7318.
The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Grimmett
... ... 7 Div. 212.Supreme Court of AlabamaNovember 9, 1933 ... Certiorari ... to Court of Appeals ... Petition ... of Bennett E. Grimmett for certiorari to the Court of Appeals ... to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court ... in Grimmett v. State, 152 So. 262 ... Writ ... granted; reversed and remanded ... ANDERSON, ... C.J., and GARDNER, J., dissenting ... J. J ... Cockrell, of Talladega, for petitioner ... Thos ... E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed ... BROWN, ... The ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
...of this court upon this point was inadvertent and erroneous in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263, in case the court said: "The Court of Appeals [Grimmett v. State, 26 Ala.App. 56, 152 So. 262], in the opinion brought under re......
-
Wood v. State
...28 Ala.App. 516, 189 So. 219; McGee v. State, 4 Ala.App. 54, 58 So. 1008; Copeland v. State, 23 Ala.App. 91, 121 So. 445; Grimmett v. State, 26 Ala.App. 56, 152 So. 262; parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263. The promulgation of an opinion, other than what has been here said, is not neces......
-
McKee v. State
...behalf of the state-none being offered by appellant-leads us to conclude that there was evidence of a "substantial" nature (Ex parte Grimmett [Ala. Sup.] 152 So. 263), though confess it seems to us not much more than a "scintilla" (Grimmett v. State [Ala. App.] 152 So. 262), supporting at l......