Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 17 June 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 1029,161 Ala. 94
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 1029

161 Ala. 94

SMITH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

John Smith was convicted of retailing spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The contents of charges 1, 2, and 4 are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Charges 3, 5, and 6 are as follows:

"(3) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless you believe from all the evidence in this case that defendant sold the witness Kirby whisky on the 25th day of April 1908, between 12 and 1 o'clock, or thereabouts, he cannot convict the defendant."

"(5) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the fact that the defendant worked at a still is no reason why you should convict the defendant. Unless you believe from all the evidence in the case that the defendant actually sold whisky to J. J. Kirby on the 25th day of April, 1908, you should acquit him.

"(6) The court charges the jury that, before the jury can convict the defendant, they must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with defendant's guilt, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion; and, unless the jury is so convinced by the evidence of the defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act upon that decision in matters of the highest concern or importance to his own interest, then they must find the defendant not guilty."

Hooten & Overton, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAYRE J.

The witness for the state, having testified to a sale of whisky by the defendant, was asked by the defendant whether he had not himself been selling whisky. The state's objection was sustained. The fact that the witness had been violating the law was, of course, totally lacking in relevancy to the issue whether defendant had sold whisky to him. If evidence had been allowed as to that fact, it would in turn have become a subject of controversy, thus obscuring the true issue and impeding the progress of the trial. Nor could the motives, and thus the credibility, of the witness, be impeached by evidence of violations of law by him. Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 12 So. 214.

Among things which may be properly given to the jury in a special charge, charges 1, 2, and 4 asserted only the general proposition that the jury must be convinced of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...