Lee v. State, 4 Div. 591.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 591. |
| Citation | 23 Ala.App. 403,126 So. 183 |
| Parties | LEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Alto Lee was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
E. C Orme, of Troy, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
By the holding of the Supreme Court of Alabama in Re Jinright v State (Ala. Sup.) 125 So. 606, the demurrer to the indictment and other objections thereto interposed by defendant, can avail him nothing. Under said decision, which perforce we must follow (section 7318, Code 1923), the demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled, and the amendment to the indictment, over objection and exception of defendant, likewise was without error.
Upon the theory of the insufficiency of the evidence, and a consequent failure of the state to meet the burden of proof by showing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the affirmative charge was requested and refused. On this question this court sitting en banc has read the entire evidence in this case, and has reached the conclusion that the affirmative charge should have been given. There was no evidence to connect the defendant with the possession of the prohibited liquor found in his field across the public road and some 75 yards from defendant's house. At most, the evidence adduced could be said to raise a mere suspicion only, and the appellate courts have many times held that convictions for crime cannot be rested upon suspicion, surmise, or conjecture. Upon the trial the evidence disclosed by numerous witnesses, without dispute, that the general character of the accused was good; and previous good character of an accused, in all criminal prosecutions, either for a felony or misdemeanor, is legal evidence for him, and when considered with all the other evidence, may generate a reasonable doubt of his guilt entitling him to an acquittal. Savage v. State (Ala. App.) 125 So. 790, and cases cited.
During the argument of the solicitor to the jury he made the statement, "the defendant has sold liquor before." This record contains no semblance of testimony authorizing or warranting such statement of fact. The statement being unsupported by any evidence, also pertinent to the issues involved upon the trial, and its natural tendency was to influence the finding of the jury, also highly prejudicial ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckner v. State
...135, 122 So. 186; Fennoy v. Hartselle, 23 Ala. App. 294, 124 So. 399; Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202; Lee v. State, 23 Ala. App. 403, 126 So. 183; Talbot v. State, 23 Ala. App. 559, 129 So. McKinnon v. State, 24 Ala. App. 537, 137 So. 677. Reversed and remanded. ...
-
Williams v. State
...exists on other proof, but even to generate reasonable doubt of his guilt. Bogle v. State, 27 Ala.App. 215, 169 So. 332; Lee v. State, 23 Ala.App. 403, 126 So. 183. the testimony of all of the abovementioned character witnesses except Porter is clearly negative in character, it has long bee......
-
Riddlespur v. State
...40 So.2d 640 34 Ala.App. 431 RIDDLESPUR v. STATE. 6 Div. 694.Alabama Court of AppealsNovember 16, 1948 ... Rehearing ... Denied Dec. 14, 1948 ... State, 24 Ala.App. 537, 137 ... So. 677; Cope v. State, 24 Ala.App. 134, 131 So. 4; ... Jacobs v. State, [34 Ala.App. 433] 23 Ala.App. 234, ... 123 So. 285; Fennoy v. City of ... ...
-
Miller v. State
...good character is legal evidence, and may, when considered with other evidence, generate a reasonable doubt of guilt. Lee v. State, 23 Ala.App. 403, 126 So. 183. We think significance is also added to the possible error resulting from the court's action in the above premises in light of the......