Beasley v. State

108 So. 921, 21 Ala. App. 660
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Beasley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ala. App. 314
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1926·No. 8 Div. 386.·Published

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Here is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for the offense of unlawfully possessing a still, etc. The entire record and all the evidence in this ease has been read and considered by this court sitting en banc. Our conclusion is that the conviction of .this appellant upon this evidence was unwarranted and erroneous. This case is not unlike that of Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788, to which we are cited. The state failed to meet the required burden of proof, and the court committed reversible error in refusing to defendant the general affirmative charge. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beasley v. State, 108 So. 921, 21 Ala. App. 660 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

108 So. 921 (Beasley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guin v. State
94 So. 788 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)