McGrew v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 844 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 266,107 So. 328 |
| Parties | McGREW v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Annie McGrew was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and she appeals. Affirmed.
Benton & Bentley, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The offense charged against the appellant was the violation of the state prohibition laws, and the prosecution originated by affidavit and warrant issued by the judge of the inferior court at Bessemer; the warrant being returnable direct to the circuit court. From a judgment of conviction in the circuit court, this appeal was taken.
It was insisted by demurrer and otherwise that the inferior court of Bessemer had jurisdiction and authority to hear and finally determine this case, and was therefore without authority to make the warrant returnable to the circuit court. However this insistence is wholly without merit, and is in the very teeth of the statutory provisions governing the questions involved. Local Acts 1923, p. 43 et seq. By said act, the "Bessemer court of misdemeanors was created and established, and section 2 of said act provides:
The act, also expressly provides that said court shall not have jurisdiction of offences for violation of the prohibition laws; and by section 5 of said act, in addition to other duties and authority, it is provided that said ex officio judge of said court may take affidavits and issue warrants in misdemeanor cases directly returnable to any other court having jurisdiction thereof, although his court has final jurisdiction of said misdemeanors.
The affidavit or complaint, in proper form and substance, sufficiently charged the offense complained of; therefore other objections to the complaint, by demurrer or otherwise, were properly not sustained.
We cannot predicate reversible error upon the action of the court in refusing to continue this case upon motion of defendant. Carr v. State, 16 So. 150, 104 Ala. 4, 14; Biddle v. State, 100 So. 572, 20 Ala.App. 49.
It is insisted that the venue was not sufficiently proven. This insistence is without merit. The law is, in criminal cases it is not necessary to prove in express terms that the offense was committed in the county (here, subdivision of the county) where the indictment was found; evidence from which the jury could so infer is sufficient. Tinney v. State, 20 So. 597, 111 Ala. 74. In the case at bar, state witness Stephenson testified on this subject that the offense complained of occurred at Keys Hill (in fact all the evidence is to that effect), The witness testified, "If Keys Hill is not in beat 55, it is in beat 53." Reference to the act, supra, discloses that both beats 53 and 55 are in the territorial subdivision over which the Bessemer court of misdemeanors has jurisdiction; and the Bessemer division of the circuit court of Jefferson county also has jurisdiction of beats 53 and 55, by virtue of an act of the Legislature approved August 18, 1919 (Local Acts 1919, p. 62 et seq.). See, also Hardeman v. State, 99 So. 53, 19 Ala.App. 563. Moreover, the general charge was not requested by defendant, predicated upon failure of proof as to venue, as required by circuit and inferior courts rule 35. Volume 4, Code 1923, p. 907.
Over the objection of defendant, the court allowed the state to prove by its witness Stephenson that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the defendant, a woman, was coming out of the house dressed in men's overalls. It is seriously insisted that this testimony was calculated to cast opprobrium upon the accused, but we are not prepared to so hold, in view of the changed conditions of these modern times. However, the matter involved was of the res gestae, and therefore admissible.
The undisputed evidence in this case disclosed that the arresting officers apprehended this appellant as she was coming out of her house dressed in overalls, and at that time she had in her possession a gallon jug full of whisky, and that, upon further search, the officers found large quantities of whisky in her house where she lived. These facts, coupled with her explanations as to her possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yancey v. State
...from the jury's consideration. In the absence of such a motion, the question is not properly presented for revision. McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266, 107 So. 328; Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d 245.” ’ “Prejudicial remarks made by counsel during the course of a trial must be jud......
-
Yancey v. State, No. CR-04-1171 (Ala. Crim. App. 3/20/2009)
...from the jury's consideration. In the absence of such a motion, the question is not properly presented for revision. McGrew v. State, 21 Ala. App. 266, 107 So. 328; Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So. 2d "Prejudicial remarks made by counsel during the course of a trial must be judged in......
-
Liner v. State
...from the jury's consideration. In the absence of such a motion, the question is not properly presented for revision. McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266, 107 So. 328; Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d We have reviewed the record for error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the ap......
-
Moore v. State, 6 Div. 939.
...can be reasonably inferred. Goodwin v. State, 27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So. 415; Smith v. State, 21 Ala.App. 497, 109 So. 530; McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266, 107 So. 328; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 So. Tinney v. State, 111 Ala. 74, 20 So. 597. The proof of venue was not rendered hearsa......