Walker v. State

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BRICKEN, P.J.
• Citation: Walker v. State, 19 Ala.App. 20, 95 So. 205 (Ala. App. 1922)
• Decision Date: 20 June 1922
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 976.
• Parties: WALKER v. STATE.

95 So. 205

19 Ala.App. 20

WALKER v. STATE.

8 Div. 976.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 20, 1922

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1922.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; W. T. Lowe, Judge.

Jim Walker was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws and he appeals. Affirmed.

Eyster & Eyster, of Albany, and Wert & Hutson, of Decatur, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The prosecution against this defendant originated in the Morgan county court. The affidavit charged that the defendant had in his possession prohibited liquors contrary to law. From a judgment of conviction he appeals.

The contention of the state was that the defendant, together with a woman of bad character, drove by two deputy sheriffs in his car on the streets of Albany shortly after dark on the night of December 13, 1921; that after passing the officers he drove his car into a side street, turned out his lights, and after traveling a short distance up said street with his lights out, stopped the car and remained at that place until the officers (who had followed him) came up. One of the officers testified that he saw defendant leave a trash pile which was six or eight feet away, and return to his car. When the officers arrived one of them searched defendant's car, but found nothing therein except defendant and the woman. The other officer, however, went to the trash pile, from which he saw defendant leave, and there found two five-gallon jugs of whisky. The defendant denied any knowledge of the whisky, and testified that he had not had it in his car nor in his possession. His testimony was corroborated by his companion, the woman who was with him. There was some other evidence in the case, and from these facts we are of the opinion that the court properly submitted the case to the jury.

While it is true that there was no testimony to show that the defendant was actually in the possession of the whisky, yet a charge of this character can be sustained upon what is known as circumstantial evidence, just as can any other criminal charge, and it becomes a question for the determination of the jury. In the instant case, the suspicious conduct of the defendant in turning up a dark side street, extinguishing the lights on his car, traveling some distance up said street, and then stopping the car within six or eight feet of a trash pile, from which the defendant was seen to leave, the immediate finding of the two five-gallon jugs of whisky, the further fact of the "defendant being a married man with a family," coupled with the fact of his having in the car with him at the time another woman, who the undisputed testimony showed was a woman of bad character constitutes we think a state of facts and circumstances upon which the jury would be authorized to base the verdict rendered, and sufficient in...