Mims v. State

• Decision Date: 26 March 1929
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 721.
• Citation: 23 Ala.App. 94,121 So. 446
• Parties: MIMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

121 So. 446

23 Ala.App. 94

MIMS v. STATE.

5 Div. 721.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 26, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; George F. Smoot, Judge.

Ed Mims was convicted of distilling and possessing a still, and he appeals.Affirmed.

J. B. Atkinson, of Clanton, for appellant.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The conflicting evidence in this case presented a jury question.The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not raised, as the affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial.

The state's evidence tended to show by its several witnesses that this appellant was at a still, which was in full operation with whisky running therefrom, and that he was assisting in its operation, and ran from the still at the approach of the officers.Without conflict it was shown that the still in question was located about one-half mile from defendant's home, and was situated upon land owned by him.

The defendant set up an alibi, and insisted that he was not at the still as testified to by the state's witnesses, but was hunting with other parties some two miles distant from where the still was located at the time the raid upon the still was made.

Several rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence, to which exception was reserved, are relied upon to effect a reversal of the judgment of conviction appealed from.

The first exception noted is upon the cross-examination of state witness Easterling.The defendant propounded the question "What did Mr. Collins say to the negro or to you when you got to the still?"The state's objection thereto was sustained.There was no error in this ruling.In the first place the question assumes that "Mr. Collins said something to the witness or to the negro when witness got to the still"; furthermore, the relevancy of such statement, if made, was not made apparent.Moreover "Mr. Collins" was next examined by the state and cross-examined by defendant, and no attempt, by predicate or otherwise, was made to show what, if anything, he said to Easterling or to the negro, as inquired by defendant.

The court properly sustained the state's objection to question propounded by defendant to his witness, Dallas Little, to wit: "Did Mrs. Mims tell you anything with reference to Sheriff Collins being there that day?"The question called for immaterial and irrelevant evidence, which could...