Blanchard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Blanchard v. State

133 So. 311, 24 Ala. App. 222, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 219

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1931

Docket7 Div. 736.

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 311 (Blanchard 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

Blanchard v. State, 133 So. 311, 24 Ala. App. 222, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 219 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There perhaps is a scintilla of evidence tending to prove that defendant had in his possession a fruit jar containing about a tablespoonful of whisky, but in view of the fact that the two principal state’s witnesses contradicted each other on a material point and several disinterested witnesses testified positively that no whisky was in the jar, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The court correctly charged the jury that the charge should be confined to the time and place where the.jar was broken, but *223 there was evidence of other acts of defendant which must have influenced the verdict in spite of the instruction of the court to the contrary.

The motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There perhaps is a scintilla of evidence tending to prove that defendant had in his possession a fruit jar containing about a tablespoonful of whisky, but in view of the fact that the two principal state’s witnesses contradicted each other on a material point and several disinterested witnesses testified positively that no whisky was in the jar, the court should have granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The court correctly charged the jury that the charge should be confined to the time and place where the.jar was broken, but *223 there was evidence of other acts of defendant which must have influenced the verdict in spite of the instruction of the court to the contrary.

The motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 311, 24 Ala. App. 222, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-state-alactapp-1931.