Price v. State
| Decision Date | 19 August 1924 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 223. |
| Parties | PRICE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Levi Price was convicted of possessing a still, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Russell & Johnson, of Oneonta, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and O. B Cornelius, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment against this appellant, defendant in the court below, contained two counts. The verdict of the jury of guilty as charged in the second count operated as an acquittal of the defendant as to the charge contained in the first count of the indictment.
The second count, in proper form and substance charged the defendant with unlawfully possessing a still, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages, etc. The evidence is without conflict as to the fact that a complete still was found at the time and place testified to by each of the witnesses for the state, and that a run had just been made on said still. As to these facts the evidence is without controversy.
The controverted question is whether or not this defendant was in possession of said still. On this proposition the evidence was in direct and sharp conflict, presenting, therefore, a question of fact for the determination of the jury.
We note that, during the progress of this trial, more than 150 objections were interposed, and the 132 exceptions were reserved to the court's rulings upon the admission and exclusion of testimony. There were also numerous additional exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court, upon objections interposed by defendant to certain statements made by the solicitor in argument. Also numerous special written charges were refused to defendant.
To undertake a discussion of the exceptions in detail would result in a voluminous opinion and could serve no good purpose. We have given careful attentive consideration to each question presented by the exceptions to the court's rulings on the testimony, and have reached the conclusion that in none of these rulings has the substantial rights of the defendant been injuriously affected. The court's actions in this regard appear manifestly fair to defendant and if any error appears it is not of sufficient import to effect a reversal of the judgment of conviction appealed from. There was direct evidence, as well as numerous circumstances testified to by the witnesses, tending to show that this defendant was present upon the occasion in question, and in possession of and operating the still. On the other hand, the defendant, as a defense to the accusation, insisted he was not present at the still, but was at that particular time several miles away, and in support of his alibi he offered several witnesses to sustain him in this contention, and his evidence and that of his numerous witnesses tended to show that he was not present at the time and place testified to by the state's witnesses. As stated, a material inquiry of fact was thus presented, and this, of course, was for the jury to determine; it being the sole prerogative of the jury to decide this important question.
As to the exceptions reserved, relative to the argument of the solicitor, we are not prepared to approve the utterances complained of, but we will not predicate reversible error thereon for the reason that matters of this character must of necessity rest largely within the sound discretion of the court. Moreover, the statements complained of cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State, 1 Div. 91
...not fairly and substantially covered in the court's oral charge. Therefore its refusal constitutes reversible error. Price v. State, 20 Ala.App. 201, 204, 101 So. 300 (1924); Caraway v. State, 18 Ala.App. 547, 548, 93 So. 376 Requested charge number 15 was also refused. "The Court charges t......
-
Dyson v. State
...Refused charge 4, requested by the defendant, is held to be good and its refusal error. The exact charge is to be found in Price v. State, 20 Ala.App. 201, 101 So. 300, and the principle announced in the charge is supported by the decisions in the following cases: Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. ......
-
Smith v. State, 8 Div. 614.
...So. 771. Refused charge 25 is materially different from charge 17 in McKenzie v. State, 19 Ala. App. 319, 97 So. 155, and Price v. State, 20 Ala. App. 201, 101 So. 300. the instant case others may have been equally guilty, but this fact would not exclude defendant. Judge Foster in the case ......
- Hill v. State