Berry v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Berry v. State

139 So. 574, 24 Ala. App. 600, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 28

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1932

Docket7 Div. 901.

StatusPublished

This text of 139 So. 574 (Berry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berry v. State, 139 So. 574, 24 Ala. App. 600, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 28 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession, etc., of a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, etc.

There was no error in allowing the state’s witness Smith to testify that the still in question was a “complete distilling outfit.” He was properly qualified as an expert. Weeks v. State, 21 Ala. App. 397, 109 So. 117; Horton v. State, 20 Ala. App. 55, 100 So. 620.

What we have said above is true as to the testimony of this same witness that “(prohibited) liquor 'could have been made on that outfit.” Authorities supra.

Appellant’s written, requested, and refused charge 5 was argumentative, and hence properly refused. The substance of same, other than the portion which was a mere argument, was covered and included in the trial court’s oral charge.

We discover, nowhere, any prejudicially erroneous ruling, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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