Perkins v. State

• Decision Date: 24 March 1931
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 199.
• Citation: 133 So. 307,24 Ala.App. 231
• Parties: PERKINS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

133 So. 307

24 Ala.App. 231

PERKINS v. STATE.

8 Div. 199.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 24, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr. Judge.

Miles Perkins was convicted of unlawfully possessing prohibited liquor, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The prosecution against this appellant originated in the county court. He was there charged with the offense of being in possession of alcoholic, spirituous, or malted liquors. From the judgment of conviction in said court he appealed to the circuit court, tried by a jury and convicted, and from the judgment of conviction in the circuit court this appeal was taken.

In considering this appeal, this court sitting en banc has read the entire evidence, and the conclusion has been reached that the conviction of appellant was without authority of law therefore wrongful and erroneous. Several reversible errors were committed pending the trial by the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence, but from the view we take of this case no discussion of these errors is necessary.

We are of the opinion that the state failed to meet the necessary burden of proof and that there was no evidence tending to connect the accused with the crime charged. In numerous decisions it has been held the mere finding of prohibited liquors on the premises of the defendant when he was not present, and no evidence whatever to connect him therewith is insufficient upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty, and that such evidence will not sustain a judgment of conviction. Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202; Talbot v. State, 23 Ala. App. 559, 129 So. 323, 324; Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206; Johnson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 598, 104 So. 352; Bush v. State, 20 Ala. App. 486, 103 So. 91; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Spelce v. State, 20 Ala. App. 412, 103 So. 694.

In the Talbot Case, supra, this court said:

"To permit a conviction of this character to stand upon such testimony would be unconscionable. It would be an exceedingly dangerous precedent to hold that the mere finding of prohibited liquor in the home of a citizen, with nothing to connect the accused therewith, and nothing to indicate or to impute any knowledge of the fact to him, is sufficient to deprive him of

...