Guin v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 159. |
| Parties | GUIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; T. L. Sowell, Judge.
Gilbert Guin was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson Kelley, of Vernon, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
In Clark v. State, 90 So. 16, this court said:
"The same rules of evidence apply in cases involving the violation of the prohibition laws in its several phases as it does in all other criminal cases, and there should be no differentiation in the application of these rules simply because the accused is charged with this character of offense."
The above statement is pertinent to the case at bar, for the transcript before us is absolutely devoid of any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury or the judgment of guilt pronounced in this case; nor is there any evidence from which the guilt of the defendant could be inferred.
The indictment contains three counts. Count 1 charged the defendant with distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages a part of which was alcohol. Counts 2 and 3, in different language, charged him with the offense of possessing a still etc.
The state's testimony to sustain these charges consisted of that of two witnesses, R. H. Anderson, the sheriff, and one J. C. Elledge. These witnesses testified that on a certain night they went to the home of one Lige Dollar, found something that looked like a still in one of the rooms of his dwelling house, and that this defendant and one Claude Haney and Lige Dollar were in the house, and that Lige Dollar said it was his house. Witness Elledge testified on cross-examination: "I didn't see Gilbert Guin handle anything there." There was no testimony showing or tending to show that this appellant said or did anything whatever in connection with the still, and the only evidence against him was that he was simply at the house of Lige Dollar at the time the state witnesses went into the house.
We do not think this evidence is sufficient to even support a surmise or raise a suspicion of the defendant's guilt. But, if his mere presence at the home of Dollar did have the result to offer a surmise or raise a suspicion of the defendant's guilt, that would not suffice; for there is no rule of evidence which permits or justifies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. State
...254 (1940); Riley v. State, 28 Ala.App. 389, 187 So. 247 (1938); Rungan v. State, 25 Ala.App. 287, 145 So. 171 (1932); Guin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 67, 94 So. 788 (1922). "An inference is merely a permissible deduction from the proven facts which the jury may accept or reject or give such pro......
-
Ashley v. State
... ... 163; Washington v. State (Ala.), 107 So. 34; ... Moody v. State (Ala.), 104 So. 142; Stanley v ... State (Ala.), 102 So. 245; Biddle v. State ... (Ala.), 99 So. 59; Harbin v. State (Ala.), 99 ... So. 740; Burnett v. State (Ala.), 107 So. 321; ... Farmer v. State (Ala.), 99 So. 59; Guin v. State ... (Ala.), 94 So. 788; Hanson v. State (Ala.), 96 ... So. 655; Knight v. State (Ala.), 97 So. 163 ... I ... submit that in view of the errors assigned that this case ... should be reversed and the appellant given another trial ... Rufus ... Creekmore, for ... ...
-
Ex parte Williams
...254 (1940); Riley v. State, 28 Ala.App. 389, 187 So. 247 (1938); Rungan v. State, 25 Ala.App. 287, 145 So. 171 (1932); Guin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 67, 94 So. 788 (1922). "An inference is merely a permissible deduction from the proven facts which the jury may accept or reject or give such pro......
-
Folds v. State
...254 (1940); Riley v. State, 28 Ala.App. 389, 187 So. 247 (1938); Rungan v. State, 25 Ala.App. 287, 145 So. 171 (1932); Guin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 67, 94 So. 788 (1922). “ ‘An inference is merely a permissible deduction from the proven facts which the jury may accept or reject or give such p......