Masters v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 239. |
| Parties | MASTERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1922.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; R.I. Jones, Judge.
Charlie Masters was indicted for having a still, etc., in his possession to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors. From a judgment of conviction, he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied 94 So. 922.
Thomas F. Seale, of Livingston, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is insisted that the indictment is bad on demurrer, because it fails to allege that the possession was felonious, and as authority we are cited to State v. Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 20 Am. Dec. 66. In that opinion it is said:
"The rule deducible from these authorities is that the indictment must contain all the essentials to constitute the offense *** and that they must not be left to inference."
The rule is there well stated, but in that case the question related to stolen property, which involved a felonious taking, as well as a felonious possession, and without which there could be no violation of the statute. The general rule is that when a statute creates a new offense, unknown to the common law, and describes its constituents, the offense may be charged in the statutory language. McLain v State, 15 Ala. App. 24, 72 So. 511; Porter v State, 15 Ala. App. 218, 72 So. 776; Ramey v. State 9 Ala. App. 51, 64 So. 168. The statute (Acts 1919, p 1086) does not make the mere possession of a still, etc., a violation of law, it is the possession coupled with the fact that it is to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, which constitutes the crime, and when the two facts coexist the crime is complete, and when so charged in an indictment all of the constituents of the crime are sufficiently described.
The other demurrers are not insisted on, but none of them are well taken.
The still alleged to have been in the possession of defendant was found in defendant's smokehouse. The defendant had a right to have it there, unless it was to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquor, and therefore it was proper for the state to show that there were cans and barrels and jugs there; that there were several barrels there that had the same odor as the barrel of mash found there that the jugs had the same odor; that there was a trough, with holes where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barger v. State, 6 Div. 540.
...of said elements the defendant is entitled to the affirmative charge. Griggs v. State, 18 Ala.App. 467, 93 So. 499; Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249; Brock v. State, 19 Ala.App. 124, 95 So. Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914, certiorari denied 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 91......
-
Bolin v. State
...the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors. This is a constituent element of the offense denounced by the statute. Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249; Reese v. State, 18 Ala.App. 357, 92 So. 77; Gamble v. State, 19 Ala.App. 82, 95 So. 202; Wilson v. State, supra. Under these......
-
Stover v. State, 8 Div. 57
...established the defendant is entitled to the general affirmative charge. Griggs v. State, 18 Ala.App. 467, 93 So. 499; Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249; Brock v. State, 19 Ala.App. 124, 95 So. 559; Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914, certiorari denied 211 Ala. 574, 10......
-
Smith v. State
...was in error in overruling the demurrers. The second count is in code form. Title 15, Sec. 259, Subsec. 76, Code 1940; Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249; Neville v. State, 23 Ala.App. 121, 123 So. 895; Aldridge v. State, 20 Ala.App. 456, 102 So. The state anchored its prosecutio......