Traffenstedt v. State, 7 Div. 970.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 970. |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 619,34 Ala.App. 273 |
| Parties | TRAFFENSTEDT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
H T. Foster, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant below was charged in an indictment containing two counts, (1) manufacturing prohibited liquor, (2) possessing an illegal still.
Court one was eliminated by the general affirmative charge. A conviction followed under the remaining count.
We take the following from the brief of the Assistant Attorney General:
'The testimony of the officers who were qualified as experts on stills, was to the effect that the apparatus in question, together with the disconnected parts, was commonly used or suitable to be used for the manufacture of prohibited liquor, although it may not have constituted a modern up-to-date still complete in every detail and as to every connected part.
This is a fair statement of the tendencies of the evidence. To it we add that the sheriff testified that as the appellant and his companion approached near the still place they stopped and cut or broke some wood.
It is clear that, by applying the provisions of Sec. 132, Title 29, Code 1940, the accused was not due the affirmative charge as to count two of the indictment. Lowrey v. State, 26 Ala.App. 159, 155 So. 313; Jackson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 409, 117 So. 156; Nugent v. State, 28 Ala.App. 182, 181 So. 707; Davis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 190, 132 So. 458.
All that was said and done by the parties present while the raid was in progress and the arrests were being made constituted a part of the res gestae and was admissible in evidence. Staples v. State, 23 Ala.App. 273, 124 So. 122.
At the time one of the officers was allowed, over objections, to testify that the parts found were suitable for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 5 Div. 357
...Ala.App. 456, 102 So. 785; Gann v. State, 22 Ala.App. 65, 112 So. 178; Pruitt v. State, 22 Ala.App. 113, 113 So. 316; Traffenstedt v. State, 34 Ala.App. 273, 38 So.2d 619. In the case of Lancaster v. State, 21 Ala.App. 140, 106 So. 609, 612, Judge Samford, writing for this court, 'If and wh......
-
Mooneyham v. State
...of Mr. Byrd. Campbell v. State, 32 Ala.App. 461, 27 So.2d 220; Flournoy v. State, 34 Ala.App. 23, 37 So.2d 218; Traffenstedt v. State, 34 Ala.App. 273, 38 So.2d 619; Graham v. State, 233 Ala. 387, 171 So. We will now review the written instructions which were refused to the defendant. The r......
-
Jackson v. District of Columbia
...denied 279 U.S. 869, 49 S.Ct. 515, 73 L.Ed. 1006; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence 630, § 279 (12th ed. 1955). 7. Traffenstedt v. State, 34 Ala.App. 273, 38 So.2d 619; Tillison v. State, 248 Ala. 199, 27 So.2d 43, and cases cited; Williams v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 227 S.W.2d 224, and cases ......
-
Smith v. State, 8 Div. 378
...the essential and required connecting proof is established. This rule has been applied to expert testimony. Traffenstedt v. State, 34 Ala.App. 273, 38 So.2d 619; Snow v. Allen, 227 Ala. 615, 151 So. Without dispute in the evidence in the instant case the appellant was highly nervous and had......