Schroeder v. State

• Decision Date: 25 November 1919
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 340
• Citation: 84 So. 309,17 Ala.App. 246
• Parties: SCHROEDER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

84 So. 309

17 Ala.App. 246

SCHROEDER v. STATE.

1 Div. 340

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 25, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; C.A. Grayson, Judge.

William Schroeder was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Most of the facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The court charged the jury on its own motion as follows:

"You disregard any testimony, if there is any, that he has been formerly convicted, but it is proper testimony for the jury to consider the fact, if it be a fact, that he had heretofore pleaded guilty; the one being the act of his own and the other the act of the court. The court charges you gentlemen of the jury, that that is competent testimony for the jury to look at in weighing his testimony, if at one time he should have said he knew nothing about it, and at another time he pleaded guilty of his own accord; you have the right to look at the fact that he pleaded guilty because he was guilty or was advised to plead guilty by counsel."

"The testimony, if there is any, and you are the sole judges of it, as to whether he pleaded guilty, is not to be looked at for the purpose of seeing whether or not he is guilty on this trial because of the fact that he pleaded guilty, but it is limited for the purpose of weighing this testimony. If he at one time said he didn't know anything about any whisky being sold there, and at another time said he had pleaded guilty on advice of counsel, then it is competent evidence to go to the jury for them to look at in weighing the testimony, and not for the purpose of prejudicing the defendant's case at your hands."

Inge &amp Kilborn, of Mobile, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

It was shown by the testimony of the state's witnesses that two city detectives standing near defendant's place of business saw a negro go in the store of defendant and come out with a package in his hand, which he gave to another negro; that the detectives grabbed both negroes, and found the package to be one-half pint of Paul Jones whisky, in a three-pound paper bag. The detectives both testified that they knew the place to be defendant's store, and that at the time the negro was in the store they saw defendant in there. Neither of the witnesses for the state testified to seeing defendant with any whisky or seeing him deliver the package to the negro. But in about ten minutes after the whisky had been found on the negroes the detectives went into the store of defendant. At this...