Robinson v. State, 3 Div. 29
| Decision Date | 07 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 29 |
| Citation | 40 Ala.App. 74,108 So.2d 376 |
| Parties | Ural ROBINSON, allas, v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
D. W. Crosland, Montgomery, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant, Ural Robinson, stands convicted of transporting illegal alcoholic beverages in quantities of five gallons or more.
The evidence presented by the State tends to show Charles Smith, Ned Harris, Marvin Daniels, Catherine Brown and the appellant left Montgomery for some place in North Florida, admittedly for the purpose of buying whiskey.
They left in two cars, a Dodge, and a Chevrolet, both registered in the name of the appellant, and both admittedly owned by the appellant, though appellant contended he had loaned the Chevrolet to Ned Harris for the purpose of this trip.
Charles Smith drove the Chevrolet as they left Montgomery, the rest of the party riding in the Dodge, some fifteen or twenty glass jugs being loaded in the Chevrolet at appellant's home before the departure. Appellant claimed he gave these jugs to Harris.
At Elba Charles Smith was arrested for driving without a license, and jailed. He was fined $29.50 for this offense, and the fine was paid by this appellant. According to Mr. Willie Williamson, Assistant Chief of Police of the City of Elba, who received the amount of the fine from the appellant, the appellant 'was kind of bragging and boasting a little and said that all this belonged to him and that he would take care of it.' Mr. Williamson observed several empty glass jugs in the Chevrolet when he examined it in Elba.
From Elba on Ned Harris drove the Chevrolet, smith transferring to the Dodge.
The two cars were driven on to Florida, the appellant riding in the Dodge, which stopped a short distance from the place where the liquor was bought. Ned Harris consummated the purchase of the whiskey which was loaded in the Chevrolet.
The party then started on the return trip to Montgomery, with Harris driving the whiskey laden Chevrolet. In Montgomery County the two cars, with the Dodge trailing a short distance behind the Chevrolet, were stopped by officers about 7:30 A. M. Some fifty gallons of moonshine whiskey was found in the Chevrolet.
The appellant denied that he had bought any part of the whiskey, or owned any interest therein.
Charles Smith and Marvin Daniels, who had pleaded guilty to the charges of transportation filed against them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yarber v. State
...to the locus of the crime, which occurs at an unreasonable hour, the requirements of corroboration are met. Robinson v. State, 40 Ala.App. 74, 108 So.2d 376 (1958), cert. denied, 268 Ala. 698, 108 So.2d 377 (1959). It may be more properly and correctly said of the rule, as was held in Kimmo......
-
Kimmons v. State, 4 Div. 509
...in proximity to the locus of the crime, which occurs at an unreasonable hour, the requirements of corroboration are met. Robinson v. State, 40 Ala.App. 74, 108 So.2d 376, cert. denied, 268 Ala. 698, 108 So.2d 377 (1959). A more proper and correct statement of the rule is that the fact that ......
-
Ward v. State
...may be supplied by the testimony of an accomplice witness who is called by and testifies for the defendant. See Robinson v. State, 40 Ala.App. 74, 108 So.2d 376 (1958), where the court noted that "the testimony of the two accomplices was corroborated in many respects by the testimony of the......
-
Lindhorst v. State, 8 Div. 881
...in proximity to the locus of the crime, which occurs at an unreasonable hour, the requirements of corroboration are met. Robinson v. State, 40 Ala.App. 74, 108 So.2d 376, cert. denied 268 Ala. 698, 108 So.2d 377 (1959). A more proper and correct statement of the rule is that the fact that a......