Mims v. State

Citation23 Ala.App. 94,121 So. 446
Decision Date26 March 1929
Docket Number5 Div. 721.
PartiesMIMS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Deloney v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1932
    ... ... 126, 129, 67 ... So. 414; 1 Enc. Dig. 289; 13 Enc. Dig. 78 ... The ... court correctly excluded the answer of defendant on ... cross-examination, "I was crazy as a loon," on the ... ground that it was not responsive to the question asked, ... "Was your head aching?" Mims v. State, 23 ... Ala. App. 94, 95, 121 So. 446. An answer not ... [142 So. 435] ... responsive to the question is properly excluded. Jones v ... State, 156 Ala. 175, 47 So. 100. Moreover, it was an ... improper conclusion of the witness as to the issue of fact ... being tried, and for the ... ...
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 29, 1973
    ...trial. Kelsoe v. State (3 Div. 194), 50 Ala.App. 378, 279 So.2d 549, cert. den. June 21, 1973, 291 Ala. ---, 279 So.2d 552; Mims v. State, 23 Ala.App. 94, 121 So. 446. The appellant contends that the prosecutrix testified 'to almost nothing.' It is clear from the record, however, that the p......
  • Duncan v. State, 7 Div. 38
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 25, 1971
    ...in the lower court and no motion for a new trial was made. A motion to exclude the evidence was made and later withdrawn. Mims v. State, 23 Ala.App. 94, 121 So. 446; Sharp v. State, 21 Ala.App. 262, 107 So. 228. However, from our study of the record there appears ample evidence to support t......
  • Chadwick v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 8, 1972
    ...support the verdict of guilty, which presents this matter for our consideration. Matthews v. State, 21 Ala.App. 181, 106 So. 390; Mims v. State, 23 Ala.App. 94, 121 Ala.App. The evidence offered by the state, although largely circumstantial, is, in our opinion, sufficiently potent and stron......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT