Slaton v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 127 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 422,109 So. 118 |
| Parties | SLATON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Application for Rehearing Dismissed June 8, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Virgil Slaton was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors and possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It having been testified to by state's witnesses that a still set up and beer was found in defendant's pasture within 200 yards of defendant's house and within 20 yards of his cornfield, and that the still could be seen from the end of the corn rows, and that a well-beaten trail led from the still to defendant's house, it was competent to prove everything found on defendant's premises and in proximity to the still, relating to the still, which evidence included two one-gallon jugs of whisky filled with corn whisky and found in defendant's garden.
Sikes v. State (Ala.App.) 107 So. 800; Jones v. State, 18 Ala.App. 626, 93 So. 332.
The defendant, when being examined as a witness, testified that the still was owned by a man named Poe, who was then dead. It was proper to allow the state to prove that at the time the defendant was arrested he made the statement that Poe had nothing to do with the still. This tended to impeach the witness on a material point.
We have examined the entire record. The defendant has had a fair trial, in which there are found no errors that could have prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights. Let the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing.
The application for rehearing does not conform to Supreme Court rule 38, in that there was no brief for the applicant accompanying the application.
The application is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell v. State
...v. State, 243 Ala. 529, 10 So.2d 855; Alberson v. State, 254 Ala. 87, 47 So.2d 182. Another example is the case of Slaton v. State, 21 Ala.App. 422, 109 So. 118, 119, where 'The defendant, when being examined as a witness, testified that the still was owned by a man named Poe, who was then ......
-
Bailey v. State, 5 Div. 579
...14), and cases there cited. Enquiry about this purported statement was not an attempt to impeach on an immaterial matter. Slaton v. State, 21 Ala.App. 422, 109 So. 118. That the State laid a predicate in questioning the defendant as required in the case of sought-for impeachment of a witnes......
-
Pulliam v. State, 6 Div. 23.
... ... still, behind the barn at the house of one of these ... defendants. Considering all of the facts, this was a ... circumstance tending to connect defendants with the ... possession of the still. Parmer v. State, 20 Ala ... App. 233, 101 So. 482; Slaton v. State, 21 Ala. App ... 422, 109 So. 118 ... We find ... no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed ... ...
- Weeks v. State