Young v. State
Decision Date | 21 March 1939 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 724. |
Citation | 188 So. 270,28 Ala.App. 491 |
Parties | YOUNG v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
Ellis Young was convicted of possessing a still, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Murphy & Pounders, of Florence, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense denounced by Code 1923, § 4656 viz.: having "in possession * * * (a) still, apparatus appliance, or * * * device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing * * * prohibited liquors or beverages."
It is without dispute that the articles found by the officers making the raid resulting in appellant's arrest, the possession of which articles was claimed to be in appellant, did not constitute a complete still,--"to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquor," or for any other purpose.
So, before appellant's conviction can stand--waiving, for the time being the question of whether or not he was shown to be in the possession of the articles in question--resort must be had to Code 1923, § 4657 ( ), which establishes a rule of evidence to be applied in trials under Code, § 4656, supra.
"Under the rule of evidence established by section 2 of said act [Code, § 4657, supra] * * * in order that the testimony shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of said act [the pertinent part of which is now Code Sec. 4656] by the accused, the state must show by the required rules of evidence, that is to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the defendant had unexplained possession of any part or parts of a still, apparatus, appliance, or some device or substitute therefor, but the state must go further and prove that such part or parts of a still, apparatus, appliance, or some device or substitute therefor was commonly or generally used for or that it was suitable to be used in the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages." (Italics ours.) Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914, 915.
As said by Mr. Chief Justice Anderson for the Supreme Court, in denying the writ of certiorari to this court in the Wilson case, supra:
"Section 2 [ ], however, deals with proof essential to a prima facie case, and, in order for the possession of the articles there enumerated to make out a prima facie case, they must be of such character as is in common use or suitable to be used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor." Ex parte State ex rel Davis, Attorney General, Wilson v. State, 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917.
We have cited, and quoted from the opinion in our case of Wilson v. State, supra, and the opinion by the Supreme Court denying certiorari in same, because this was the first case construing Sections 1 and 2 of the Act approved Sept. 30, 1919, supra ( ).
In cases far too numerous to cite the interpretation given this Section 2 of the above mentioned Act (Code, § 4657) in the said Wilson case has been re-affirmed--with never a change. See Shepard's Ala. Citations; also...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Black v. State
...beverages, if the still is possessed for the purpose of such manufacture.' Wilson v. State, 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Young v. State, 28 Ala.App. 491, 188 So. 270; Hudson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 217, 31 So.2d 771, 773, certiorari granted for insufficiency of evidence, 249 Ala. 372, 31 So.2d ......
-
Hudson v. State, 4 Div. 6.
... ... beverages. If one possesses a complete still it matters not ... if it be generally or commonly used, or suitable for the ... manufacture of prohibited beverages, if the still is ... possessed for the purpose of such manufacture. Wilson v ... State, 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Young v ... State, 28 Ala.App. 491, 188 So. 270 ... The ... elements essential to sustain a conviction for the violation ... of Section 131, supra, i. e., the possession of a complete ... still, apparatus, etc. are (1) the possession of such still, ... etc. and (2) that same is ... ...
-
Johnson v. State, 7 Div. 400
...beverages, if the still is possessed for the purpose of such manufacture. Wilson v. State, 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Young v. State, 28 Ala.App. 491, 188 So. 270." Hudson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 217, 31 So.2d 771, 773, certiorari granted for insufficiency of evidence, 249 Ala. 372, 31 So.2d ......