Latham v. State
| Citation | 38 Ala.App. 92,77 So.2d 499 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 879 |
| Parties | Richard LATHAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Judson C. Locke, Marion, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The first count of the indictment charges the offense of manufacturing whiskey. The second count charges the possession of an illegal still. The verdict of the jury responded to the second count. This had the effect of acquitting the accused of manufacturing whiskey. Dickerson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 432, 26 So.2d 627; Whitt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 526, 175 So. 333.
Without dispute in the evidence the raiding officers found two complete whiskey distilling outfits and a large quantity of 'moonshine whiskey' all at the same general location or locale.
As the officers approached, a man ran away from the place, but his identity could not be determined. They found a woman there. The State relied to a great extent on the testimony of the woman in making out its case against the appellant. She testified that she had been at the place with the defendant continuously for three weeks. During this time the latter had operated the two stills and the whiskey found by the officers was some of the manufactured product.
Soon after the raid two of the officers left the place in an automobile and when they had journeyed about two and one-half miles they observed the defendant as he was walking through the woods. He was arrested and later admitted to an officer that the two stills were his property.
At the trial below he testified that he knew nothing about the stills and had not operated them. He denied that he admitted ownership of the outfits.
The two stills were located at the same place and closely connected. Under these circumstances the effect of the proof of the presence and description of each one was not to charge the defendant with two separate offenses.
The woman found at the still testified that prior to the raid the defendant manufactured whiskey in the two stills and that sugar was brought to the place and used in preparing the beer for distilling purposes. This evidence was admissible. The offense of possessing a still at the same location and by the same party or parties is continuing in evidential character. However, only one conviction may be had for the possession. Blackstone v. State, 19 Ala.App. 582, 99 So. 323; Usrey v. State, 36 Ala.App. 394, 56 So.2d 790.
Objections were interposed to several questions directed to the raiding officers relating to what they found at the still place and a description thereof. All of this was pertinent to prove the corpus delicti. Its admissibility did not necessarily depend on the presence of the appellant.
It may be noted that in some instances no exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court. Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633; Bennett v. State, 248 Ala. 664, 29 So.2d 217. In others objections came after the witness had answered the question. Corbitt v. State, 35 Ala.App. 572, 50 So.2d 454; Kelley v. State, supra.
The woman indicated above was indicted for the offense of manufacturing whiskey and possessing an illicit still. This alone did not make her an accomplice. Dukes v. State, 33 Ala.App. 474, 34 So.2d 707; Welch v. State, 35 Ala.App. 643, 51 So.2d 905.
She did not admit that she was in any manner connected with the unlawful enterprise. In fact, the effect of her testimony was a denial. All this aside, her testimony was sufficiently corroborated to meet the requirements of the statute. Harris v. State, 32 Ala.App. 519, 27 So.2d 794; Clark v. State, 35 Ala.App. 60, 43 So.2d 431.
Clearly the defendant was not entitled to the general affirmative charge. Welch v. State, 20 Ala.App. 468, 102 So. 914.
In his motion to exclude the State's evidence appellant's attorney poses the position that the corpus delicti was not proven independently of the testimony of the accomplice. As we have pointed out, it is not made certain by the evidence that the woman witness was an accomplice. Be this as it may, to establish the corpus delicti the State is not necessarily required to prove that the defendant is the party who committed the offense in question. Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593, 196 So. 96; Beans v. State, 36...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. State, 6 Div. 169
...712. 3 Being indicted along with another does not alone mark one as an accomplice under the statute here of concern. Latham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 92, 77 So.2d 499. The question of law for the court resolves itself into one of undisputed evidence. If this, taken altogether most favorably tow......
-
Davis v. State
...indicted and pled guilty to the same offense, this fact Does not for Davis's case make him out ipso facto an accomplice. Letham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 92, 77 So.2d 499. The testimony here shows only that Moore went along with Davis, watched Davis, but did not watch out to help Davis. Indeed,......
-
Lane v. State
...Fleet Corp., 215 Ala. 321, 100 So. 469; Esdale v. State, 37 Ala.App. 48, 68 So.2d 512 (where more cases may be found); Latham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 92, 77 So.2d 499; Burton v. State, Ala.App., 109 So.2d At the beginning of the transcript of the evidence, we find the following: 'Mr. R. H. Jo......
-
Lowery v. State
...Ala. 549, 253 So.2d 302; Lane v. State, 40 Ala.App. 174, 109 So.2d 758; Burton v. State, 40 Ala.App. 146, 109 So.2d 311; Latham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 92, 77 So.2d 499, cert. stricken 262 Ala. 108, 77 So.2d We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the Court of Appeals of Maryland i......