McMullen v. State
| Decision Date | 27 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 612 |
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 399,116 So. 304 |
| Parties | McMULLEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; James E. Horton, Judge.
Will McMullen was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Robt. C. Brickell, of Huntsville, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Under the provisions of Local Acts 1919, p. 17 (No. 44), approved February 11, 1919, prosecutions of persons charged with misdemeanors, in Madison county, may be begun by affidavit made before the clerk of the circuit of Madison county, and thereupon the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Madison county shall attach, and the case shall proceed to trial and judgment under the same rules and procedure as provided by law in misdemeanor causes.
This prosecution originated under the terms or provisions of the above local statute, the affidavit being made by one R.S Watson before Carter H. Rice, clerk of the circuit court. Warrant of arrest was issued and made returnable to the circuit court. The specific charge against this appellant was the violation of the prohibition laws of the state by having in his possession prohibited liquors. No objection, by demurrer or otherwise, was interposed to the affidavit, as framed, and, the affidavit not being void upon its face, and if defective only, such defect should have been pointed out by demurrer, and the fact that one of the specific alternative averments in the affidavit charged no offense known to the law in this state cannot, in the present status, avail the defendant here. Sanders Griffin v State (Ala.App.) 115 So. 769 (7 Div. 401).
Upon the trial of this case, in the circuit court, and before pleading to the merits of the affidavit upon which the trial was had, the defendant filed a plea of former conviction and upon this plea the state joined issue. This placed upon the defendant the burden of proving the special plea interposed by him. The evidence adduced in this connection was without conflict, and under the authority of Holland v State, 21 Ala.App. 520, 109 So. 885; Leon Holland v State, 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 886, the plea was fully proven and the defendant was entitled to his discharge. The court held to the contrary and in so doing committed error to a reversal. In the Holland Case, supra (certiorari denied by Supreme Court), on the question of unlawful possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
... ... whisky is so placed as to constitute a single group, it is ... one possession, for which only one prosecution will lie. Such ... was the case in Whitaker v. State, 21 Ala. App. 114, ... 105 So. 433; Holland v. State, 21 Ala. App. 520, 109 ... So. 885; Id., 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 886; McMullen v ... State, 22 Ala. App. 399, 116 So. 304. On the other hand, ... if the whisky is divided into separate lots or groups, and ... placed in separate caches or depositaries, not connected with ... each other, the possession of the whisky in each separate ... cache constitutes a separate and ... ...
-
Richardson v. City of Tuscaloosa
...21 Ala.App. 114, 105 So. 433; Holland v. State, 21 Ala.App. 520, 109 So. 885; Holland v. State, 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 886; McMullen v. State (Ala.App.) 116 So. 304. In Whitaker Case, supra, the state's evidence disclosed that the first whisky found was in defendant's iron safe in his store,......
-
James v. State
... ... act. The facts of this case are not unlike the facts in the ... following cases: Whitaker v. State, 21 Ala. App ... 114, 105 So. 433; Holland v. State, 21 Ala. App ... 520, 109 So. 885; Holland v. State, 215 Ala. 106, ... 109 So. 886; McMullen v. State, 22 Ala. App. 399, ... 116 So. 304; Richardson v. Tuscaloosa (Ala. App.) ... 118 So. 496 ... Under ... the existing law, in cases of this character, it is the duty ... of this court (upon appeal), if error appears, to render such ... judgment in the cause as the court below ... ...
- Edmonds v. Shirley