Robinson v. State
Decision Date | 16 November 1965 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 56 |
Citation | 180 So.2d 282,43 Ala.App. 111 |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Parties | Earl ROBINSON and Robert S. Moore v. STATE. |
Windell C. Owens, Monroeville, for appellants.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John D. Bonham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants, Earl Robinson and Robert S. Moore, were convicted in the Circuit Court of Monroe County of the offense of taking or attempting to take fish from the public waters of Alabama by means of an electrical device. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction, which is based upon a jury verdict.
Act No. 786, page 1384, Acts of Alabama 1951 (see Tit. 8, Sec. 79(1)) reads as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to take, catch, stun or kill, or attempt to take, catch, stun or kill, any game or non-game fish by any means other than those which are expressly allowed by law or regulation of the department of conservation, in any of the public waters of this state.
'The possession of any electrical device or any other device or instrument, on the bank of a public stream or other public body of water or in a boat on such water, which is capable of taking, catching, stunning or killing fish and which device or instrument is not expressly allowed by law or regulation of the department of conservation, shall be prima facie evidence that the device or instrument is being used illegally for the purpose of taking, catching, stunning or killing, or attempting to take, catch, stun or kill game or non-game fish.'
Reasonable Rules and Regulations of the State Department of Conservation have the force and effect of law, and courts may take judicial knowledge of the same. West v. State, 30 Ala.App. 318, 6 So.2d 434, certiorari denied 242 Ala. 369, 6 So.2d 436. We have not found any regulations of the Department of Conservation which expressly allow the taking of fish from the public waters of this State by use of an electrical device.
Appellants' main contention was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti.
The State's evidence consisted of the testimony of Chester P. Gardner and W. A. Thames, the arresting officers. Both witnesses are conservation officers employed by the State Department of Conservation. Inasmuch as the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, we shall quote liberally from the testimony. Officer Gardner gave in part the following testimony on direct examination:
'
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'
On cross-examination Officer Gardner testified as follows:
'
* * *
* * *
'
'
Officer W. A. Thames testified on direct examination as follows:
'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maddox v. State
...a crime is relevant, for from such fact, if unexplained, the jury may justly infer consciousness of guilt.' " Robinson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 111, 116, 180 So.2d 282, 287 (1965), quoted in Mottenon v. State, 346 So.2d 18, 21 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). "An effort to suppress evidence by an accused is......
-
Sewell v. State
...171; United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360 (2nd Cir. 1948), cert. den. 333 U.S. 860, 68 S.Ct. 738, 92 L.Ed. 1139; Robinson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 111, 180 So.2d 282 (1965); People v. Weiss, 50 Cal.2d 535, 327 P.2d 527 (1958); People v. Kendall, 111 Cal.App.2d 204, 244 P.2d 418 (1952), cer......
-
Watwood v. State
...of a crime is relevant, for from such fact, if unexplained, the jury may justly infer a consciousness of guilt. Robinson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 111, 180 So.2d 282 (1965). An effort to suppress evidence by an accused is evidence of guilt and is admissible even if it involves evidence of a sep......
-
Clopton v. State
...30 Ala.App. 318, 321, 6 So.2d 434, 436 (1941), cert. denied, 242 Ala. 369, 370, 6 So.2d 436 (1942); accord, Robinson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 111, 112, 180 So.2d 282, 283 (1965); Sanders v. State, 53 Ala.App. 534, 539, 302 So.2d 117, 122 (1974). However, there is no indication in the record th......