Tuggle v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 559 |
| Citation | 112 So. 540,22 Ala.App. 89 |
| Parties | TUGGLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Franklin County; B.H. Sargent, Judge.
Bud Tuggle was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Stell & Quillin, of Russellville, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The trial was had before the judge sitting without a jury. The evidence discloses a five-gallon jug of whisky on lands of defendant, in the woods, and in a hole where an old stump had been, with some leaves over it. The point where the jug was found was variously estimated from 150 yards to one-fourth of a mile from defendant's house. The nearest the defendant was ever shown to have been to the place where the whisky was found was in a cultivated field in which he worked, the edge of which was about 50 yards from where the whisky was found. About 150 or 200 yards from where the whisky was found, there were about 100 empty bottles belonging to defendant. These were ordinary beer bottles, with nothing to indicate a connection with the whisky, but the bottles were claimed by defendant and were in the edge of defendant's field. There being no connection shown between the bottles found and the whisky, the bottles were not a part of the res gestae and evidence relating to them was illegal and irrelevant.
Human liberty is too sacred and has been too dearly bought to authorize a conviction, except upon legal evidence connecting the defendant with the commission of a crime, and that beyond a reasonable doubt. Facts which would warrant a suspicion, however strong, do not overcome the presumption of innocence. The defendant should have been acquitted. Frederick v. State, 20 Ala.App. 336, 102 So. 146; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala.App. 283, 101 So. 511; Bush v. State, 20 Ala.App. 486, 103 So. 91; Johnson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 598, 104 So. 352.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlton v. State
...a reasonable doubt. Facts which would warrant a suspicion, however strong, do not overcome the presumption of innocence.' Tuggle v. State, 22 Ala.App. 89, 112 So. 540. From the foregoing, I am firmly of the opinion that a reversal of this case should be ordered, and the cause remanded to th......
-
Buckner v. State
...App. 600, 104 So. 351; Guilford v. State, 20 Ala. App. 625, 104 So. 678; Allen v. State, 21 Ala. App. 23, 104 So. 867; Tuggle v. State, 22 Ala. App. 89, 112 So. 540; Phillips v. State, 22 Ala. App. 97, 112 So. Williams v. State, 22 Ala. App. 425, 116 So. 413; Copeland v. State, 23 Ala. App.......
-
Hayes v. State
...594, 101 Am.St.Rep. 474; 17 R.C.L. 73; Frederick v. State, 20 Ala.App. 336, 102 So. 146; State v. Clark (La.) 113 So. 777; Tuggle v. State (Ala.App.) 112 So. 540. are certain civil liabilities which may be fastened on a principal through the acts of an agent acting within the line and scope......
-
Coffey v. State
... ... sustain the conviction. The guilt of the defendant rests ... wholly on suspicion, surmise and conjecture. But facts which ... warrant only a suspicion of guilt, however strong, do not, ... and cannot, overcome the presumption of innocence which ... attends every defendant on trial. Tuggle v. State, ... 22 Ala.App. 89, 112 So. 540; Scott v. City of Troy, ... 24 Ala.App. 453, 136 So. 432; Chancellor v. State, ... 29 Ala.App. 613, 199 So. 749 ... Here ... we think we are also bound to give emphasis and adherence to ... the rule, so oft quoted, that "where the ... ...