Joyner v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 218 |
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 240,77 So. 78 |
| Parties | JOYNER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1917
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
William Joyner was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied 77 So. 1000.
Riddle & Riddle, of Talladega, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment under which the defendant was tried and convicted contained one count only, and was as follows:
"The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, William Joyner sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, had in his possession for sale, or otherwise unlawfully disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law," etc.
On the trial of the case, the state introduced three witnesses, each of whom testified that they had bought whisky from the defendant at different times, but within the period covered by the indictment. At the conclusion of the state's testimony, the defendant moved the court to require the state to elect on which transaction the defendant was being tried. This motion was granted, and properly so, as the indictment contained only one count, and, notwithstanding the several alternative averments, but one conviction could have been had under this single count in the indictment charging different violations of the prohibition law in the alternative; and the state elected to prosecute on the transaction as testified to by Moses Jacobs, the first witness introduced by the state.
Thereupon the defendant again moved the court to require the state to elect under which alternative of the indictment they would prosecute defendant. The court denied this motion, and refused to require the state to elect under which alternative of the indictment it would proceed, and to this action of the court the defendant duly excepted. This motion was properly denied. Beason v. State, 72 Ala. 191; Herring v State, 75 So. 646. The witness Moses Jacobs only testified to one transaction, to wit, the purchase from the defendant of one-half pint of whisky for which the witness paid 50 cents; the whisky being purchased in the defendant's place of business, where he sold soft drinks and other articles of merchandise, in Goodwater, Ala.
Under the law, when the court required the state to rely on a single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denham v. State
...v. State, 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. 78. ...
-
Brown v. State
...the case of Brooms v. State, 15 Ala.App. 118, 72 So. 691. The holding of the court in Brooms was expressly overruled in Joyner v. State, 16 Ala.App. 240, 77 So. 78, certiorari denied, 201 Ala. 696, 77 So. 1000. In Joyner, the court pointed out that, where the State relies on a single transa......
-
Holland v. State
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Craft v. State
...cites the case of Brooms v. State, 15 Ala.App. 118, 72 So. 691 (1916). However, this case was expressly overruled by Joyner v. State, 16 Ala.App. 240, 77 So. 78, cert. denied, 201 Ala. 696, 77 So. 1000 (1917), which clearly stated that where, as in the instant case, only one offense is char......