Guarreno v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 1906 |
Citation | 148 Ala. 637,42 So. 833 |
Parties | GUARRENO v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.
Jasper Guarreno was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.Affirmed.
The defendant was tried upon the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Jasper Guarreno, sold spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors without license and contrary to law; that Jasper Guarreno did sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of spirituous or malt liquors without a license, and contrary to law; that Jasper Guarreno did unlawfully sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, or other intoxicating beverages, not in an incorporated city or town having police jurisdicton both day and night, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama."
Defendant demurred to the first count: The following grounds were assigned to the second count: To count 3 were assigned the following demurrers"(1) Because it is not charged that the sale was not in a town or city having police regulation both by day and night, but uses the words 'police jurisdiction,' instead of 'regulation.' "These demurrers were overruled.
The evidence tended to show that Roberts purchased a bottle of something from a woman at Guarreno's store who was represented to him to be the wife of Guarreno, that it tasted like beer, and that he carried the bottle into the grand jury room, and before the grand jury sitting for the city court of Bessemer.Motion was made to exclude all this evidence because immaterial, irrelevant, and illegal.The motion was overruled.This witness also testified to other sales by the same person.Motion was made to exclude this evidence because illegal and irrelevant, and because the state had elected to prosecute for another sale.A. C. Mitchell and H W. Sweet were introduced by the state and shown to be members of the grand jury that preferred this indictment, and each testified that he knew the witness Roberts and knew the defendant; that the witness Roberts brought a bottle of liquid into the grand jury room which he swore he had bought from the defendant; that said bottle was opened in the presence of the grand jury, and that the witnesses tasted the liquid, the contents of the bottle, and that it was beer.Objection was interposed to each part of this testimony, and was overruled.Witnesses further testified that the liquor had no intoxicating effect upon them, but that they knew it was beer from its taste and appearance; that they were not experts on beer, but they were pretty good judges of it.Dennis and Hunnicut were introduced as witnesses by the state, and were asked by the solicitor: "Did you ever buy any beer or liquor from the defendant?"Objection was interposed to...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
...Ala. 32; Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 546; Bailey v. Stat, 99 Ala. 145 [13 So. 566]; Jones v. State, 136 Ala. 122, 123, 34 So. 236; Guarreno v. State, 42 So. 833. 'Nor was it necessary to allege the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, nor the particular time or place at which it wa......
-
Denham v. State
... ... 638, ... 72 So. 293; Howle v. State, 1 Ala.App. 228, 56 So ... 37; Sellers v. State, 98 Ala. 72, 13 So. 530; ... McIntosh v. State, 140 Ala. 137, 37 So. 223; ... Untreinor v. State, ... [90 So. 131.] ... 146 Ala. 133, To view preceding link please click here ... 41 So. 170; Guarreno v. State, 148 Ala. 637, 42 So ... 833; Joyner v. State, 16 Ala.App. 240, 77 So ... ...
-
Noltey v. State
... ... 449, 4 So. 355; Grattan v. State, 71 Ala. 344; ... Sims v. State, 135 Ala. 61, 33 So. 162 ... But it ... has been held that an allegation that the sale "was ... without a license and contrary to law is the equivalent of ... the negative averment referred to." Guarreno v ... State, 148 Ala. 637, 42 So. 833, 835. See Tarkins v ... State, 108 Ala. 17, 19 So. 24. There is now no license ... permitted, and the words negativing a license are now ... omitted, but the words "contrary to law" remain ... These, we think, have that effect ... Count 3 ... ...
-
Tucker v. State
...and that the instruction as to the woman's agency was proper, in view of his testimony on cross-examination." In Guarreno v. State, 148 Ala. 637, 32 So. 833, it held: "Where, on a trial for an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, the evidence showed that the sale of liquors was made by the......