Thomasson v. State
| Decision Date | 31 August 1926 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 125 |
| Citation | 110 So. 563,21 Ala.App. 562 |
| Parties | THOMASSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; W.L. Parks, Judge.
Perry Thomasson was convicted of possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Thomasson v. State, 110 So. 564.
p>Page J. Morgan Prestwood, of Andalusia, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The entire record in this case has had our attentive consideration. The several conflicts in the evidence presented a jury question, and the court therefore properly refused the affirmative charge requested by defendant.
There was evidence as to the confession of this defendant. The corpus delicti had been fully proven, and a proper predicate had been laid for the admission of the confession, and the court committed no error in allowing the alleged confession in evidence. Appellant's insistence in this connection cannot be sustained. The admissibility of a confession is a question for the court. The weight and credibility of the evidence bearing thereon is for the jury.
There was no error in allowing the state to show that the officers searched the home of defendant and found whisky in his home even though they had no search warrant. Clements v State, 19 Ala.App. 177, 95 So. 831. Banks v State, 18 Ala.App. 376 (7th headnote), 93 So. 293, 24 A.L.R. 1359.
It is next insisted that the court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to show that the officers destroyed the whisky found by them at the still and at the home of the defendant without any order of the court to so destroy it. There is no merit in this insistence. The statute expressly provides that all appliances which have been used, or are used, or ready to be used, for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages are contraband, and no person, firm, or corporation, or association of persons, shall have any property rights in or to the same, and it is the duty of the officers to at once summarily destroy and render such appliances useless for service. The same statute makes it the duty of the officers to also summarily destroy any liquor or liquids, the product of a distillery or plant for the making of prohibited liquor. Section 4775, Code 1923. It was immaterial, so far as the issues involved upon this trial, what disposition the officers made of the mule and wagon, syrup, etc. There was no error in the court's refusing to allow defendant to pursue this line of inquiry.
The state offered evidence of an incriminatory statement alleged to have been made by this defendant's wife. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. State
...172, 51 N.W. 652; Allen v. State, 20 Ala.App. 467, 103 So. 712, writ of certiorari denied in 212 Ala. 654, 103 So. 713; Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562, 110 So. 563, writ of certiorari denied in 215 Ala. 315, 110 So. 564.) same is true when the incriminating statement is made by an infa......
-
Bahakel v. Great Southern Trucking Co.
...12 Ala.App. 33, 67 So. 619; Fancher v. State, 217 Ala. 700, 117 So. 423; Elliott v. State, 19 Ala.App. 263, 97 So. 115; Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562, 110 So. 563, certiorari denied 215 Ala. 315, 110 So. We have carefully examined all the cases cited by appellants to support their arg......
-
Guenther v. State
...which included both 'reasonably satisfied' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in a presumption of innocence charge. In Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562, 110 So. 563, where charge 1 included both 'reasonably satisfied' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' the court 'The measure of proof in a cri......
-
Davis v. State
...beyond a reasonable doubt, not reasonably satisfied, of defendant's guilt. Jones v. State, 100 Ala. 88, 14 So. 772; Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562, 110 So. 563. A charge authorizing conviction, if 'satisfied' of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is not misleading, since the ......