Roper v. State, 5 Div. 969
| Decision Date | 14 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 969 |
| Citation | 165 So. 870,27 Ala.App. 78 |
| Parties | ROPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Stricken Feb. 18, 1936
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; Arthur Glover, Judge.
J.C alias Charlie, Roper was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Reynolds & Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The charge was made by affidavit signed by a deputy sheriff and under a local law applicable to Chilton and Madison counties, the warrant was issued returnable to the circuit court.
The evidence for the state, which was positively denied by defendant and his witnesses, tended to prove that defendant was seen behind an icehouse in Clanton taking a drink of whisky from a pint bottle, after which he handed it to a friend there, who, on seeing the officer, threw the bottle away, which, on being recovered by the officer, was found to be about two-thirds full of white whisky. The defendant and his witnesses denied all this, and there were some contradictory statements by the state's witnesses tending to impeach their testimony. The punishment was fixed by the jury at a fine of $50, for which the defendant was sentenced to hard labor for 20 days and 66 days to pay the costs, and the court added an additional term of 3 months.
There were many objections to testimony, some of which might have constituted reversible error, if proper exceptions had been reserved, but, in the absence of such exceptions, they will not be considered.
The defendant requested the court in writing to give charges 3, 4, and 7. These charges assert correct propositions of law and should have been given. For the error in the refusal to give these charges as requested, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
On Rehearing.
The appellant in this case having filed his brief as required on the original submission, and the state not having filed brief within fifteen days thereafter from such submission, the motion of the appellant that the application for rehearing be stricken must be granted. Supreme Court Rule 38 provides: "No application shall be received or filed which is not presented in strict compliance with this rule." The rule proceeds further: "No appellee can, as a matter of right, apply for a rehearing unless brief was filed with clerk upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earnest v. State
...the general charge. Since the oral charge did not cover the presumption of innocence, the refusal of charge 15 (charge 4, Roper v. State, 27 Ala.App. 78, 165 So. 870) was probably error. In Robinson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 604, 61 So.2d 140, charge A, which corresponds to charge 15 refused he......
-
Wilkerson v. State
...submission, the application for rehearing is stricken on appellant's motion. Hill v. State, 24 Ala.App. 239, 133 So. 741; Roper v. State, 27 Ala.App. 78, 165 So. 870; parte Shirey, 206 Ala. 167, 90 So. 75. Application stricken. ...
-
Robinson v. State
...to give requested charges A and D. The refusal of a charge identical to charge A was held to be reversible error in Roper v. State, 27 Ala.App. 78, 165 So. 870. But in Hurston v. State, 235 Ala. 213, 178 So. 223, the Supreme Court held it is not error to refuse charges of similar import whe......
- Gamble v. State, 7 Div. 860.