Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 134 |
| Citation | 109 So. 885,21 Ala.App. 520 |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Leon Holland was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Farmer Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The evidence in this case tends to show the possession of prohibited liquors at several different places at or near the place of residence of the defendant. The defendant in his brief insists that each of the places at which whisky was found was a separate offense, and that therefore evidence of one of these offenses excluded inquiry as to others. To sustain this we are cited to the cases of Joyner v State, 16 Ala.App. 240, 77 So. 78; Ex parte Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419, 73 So. 35, and other cases of similar import. These cases assert correct propositions of law, but are not applicable to the case at bar. If there was whisky in the smokehouse, 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, and evidence tending to prove this was admissible, and evidence having been admitted tending to prove this no election on the part of the state, was necessary. Collier v. State, 16 Ala.App. 425, 78 So. 419; Brannon v. State, 16 Ala.App. 259, 76 So. 991.
The remarks of the trial judge, made by him in connection with his ruling as to the admissibility of certain testimony, was upon objection of defendant withdrawn, and hence could not now be made the basis of reversible error. Bean v. State, 18 Ala.App. 281, 91 So. 499. The incident, as shown by the record, would not justify the granting of defendant's motion to enter a verdict of not guilty, nor for the entering of a mistrial, nor for a withdrawal of the case from the jury and granting a continuance. The incident is sought to be magnified into prejudicial error. We do not think so.
The several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony and in refusing requested charges are examined, and found to be free from error.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing.
Application for rehearing overruled.
The application for rehearing should be granted, and the judgment of conviction reversed, because of the erroneous rulings of the court (to which rulings exceptions were taken) in allowing in evidence testimony to the effect that within nearly 300 feet of this defendant's home the searching officers found four pints of rum or whisky in the water; and at another place, but at approximately the same distance from appellant's home, one quart of whisky was found, by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
...knowledge, and of which he has control, is one possession and may not be split up into numerous offenses. 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 " 'If there was whisky in the smoke......
-
Smith v. State
...knowledge, and of which he has control, is one possession and may not be split up into numerous offenses. 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 " 'If there was whisky in the smoke......
-
State v. la Verne
...must assume that the instruction was followed." De Bock v. De Bock, 43 Cal. App. 283, 301, 184 P. 890, 897. See, also, Holland v. State, 21 Ala. App. 520, 109 So. 885; Coulter v. State, 110 Ark. 209, 214, 215, 161 S. W. 186; Robinson v. People, 76 Colo. 416, 421, 232 P. 672; State v. Gatlin......
-
Smith v. State
... ... A man may be in ... possession of 1 or 100 vessels containing whisky. If this ... whisky is so placed as to constitute a single group, it is ... one possession, for which only one prosecution will lie. Such ... was the case in Whitaker v. State, 21 Ala. App. 114, ... 105 So. 433; Holland v. State, 21 Ala. App. 520, 109 ... So. 885; Id., 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 886; McMullen v ... State, 22 Ala. App. 399, 116 So. 304. On the other hand, ... if the whisky is divided into separate lots or groups, and ... placed in separate caches or depositaries, not connected with ... each other, ... ...