Moseley v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 899. |
| Citation | 99 So. 657,19 Ala.App. 588 |
| Parties | MOSELEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crenshaw County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Robert Lee Moseley was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank B. Bricken, of Luverne, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
We have examined the testimony, and giving to the testimony such weight to which it is entitled we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence upon which to base a verdict of conviction.
The state was dependent for a conviction on the testimony of one W. O. Robbins, whose testimony as to the material facts connecting defendant with the crime was denied by the defendant and his witnesses. To corroborate the main state's witness, the state was permitted, over the objection and exception of defendant, to introduce in evidence an affidavit and warrant, dated July 30, 1921, charging this defendant, and two others, with having manufactured prohibited liquors. The affidavit was signed by J. B. Sikes, and the warrant issued by J. N. Pollard, justice of the peace. What connection this paper has with the case on trial does not appear. There is no evidence tending to connect this paper with the pending suit. Such paper was clearly immaterial for any purpose, and burdened the defendant's case with the sworn opinion of a person not a witness to the facts in issue that there was probable cause for believing that defendant was guilty of the offense of manufacturing whisky.
The action of the court in admitting this evidence was error to a reversal.
Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Peoples v. State
-
McDonald v. State
... ... defendant's case with the sworn opinion of a person not a ... witness to the facts in issue, that there was probable cause ... for believing that the defendant was guilty of the offense ... upon which he was then on trial. In the case of Moseley ... v. State, 99 So. 657, 19 Ala.App. 588, this court passed ... upon an identical ruling to the one here complained of, and ... held that it was reversible error to allow such paper in ... evidence over the objection and exception of defendant ... Other ... questions are presented ... ...
-
Fuller v. State
... ... testimony of Fuller. The status here presented is different ... from that if Dave Sterling had been on trial. He was not on ... trial, was not even a witness, and so far as this trial is ... concerned had no immediate connection therewith. Moseley ... v. State, 19 Ala.App. 588, 99 So. 657. Each of these ... questions is properly presented, and the exceptions reserved ... in this connection must be sustained ... The ... rehearing is granted. Opinion substituted ... Reversed ... and ... ...
- American Ry. Express Co. v. McMinn