Brogden v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brogden v. State

106 So. 679, 21 Ala. App. 195, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 330

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1925

Docket4 Div. 22.

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 679 (Brogden 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

Brogden v. State, 106 So. 679, 21 Ala. App. 195, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 330 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

From a judgment of conviction for unlawfully possessing a still, and for distilling, making, or manufacturing spirituous liquors, defendant appealed.

No special charges were requested by defendant, nor was there a motion for a new trial. The appeal is rested upon several rulings of the court 'upon the admission of testimony.

The evidence in this case consisted: First, of the corpus delicti, which was fully proven; second, the voluntary confession of defendant that he, together with the codefendant, Whit Payne, were operating the still when the officers appeared, and that Payne was captured by the officers, but he, defendant, succeeded in escaping; third, that the defendant was actually operating the still in conjunction with said Whit Payne, he (Payne) testifying to this effect. Defendant denied any connection with the still, and also denied that he had any conversation with state witness Mrs. Lucus relative thereto'. He admitted having the conversation with several other state witnesses who had testified relative to his voluntary confession, but defendant insisted that in these conversations he was merely “carrying on and joking.” The evidence, being thus in conflict, presented a question for the determination of the jury. It was amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered. The several exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court are wholly without merit, and need not be discussed. No error *196 appearing upon the trial of this case, and the record also being without error, the judgment of conviction in the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

From a judgment of conviction for unlawfully possessing a still, and for distilling, making, or manufacturing spirituous liquors, defendant appealed.

No special charges were requested by defendant, nor was there a motion for a new trial. The appeal is rested upon several rulings of the court 'upon the admission of testimony.

The evidence in this case consisted: First, of the corpus delicti, which was fully proven; second, the voluntary confession of defendant that he, together with the codefendant, Whit Payne, were operating the still when the officers appeared, and that Payne was captured by the officers, but he, defendant, succeeded in escaping; third, that the defendant was actually operating the still in conjunction with said Whit Payne, he (Payne) testifying to this effect. Defendant denied any connection with the still, and also denied that he had any conversation with state witness Mrs. Lucus relative thereto'. He admitted having the conversation with several other state witnesses who had testified relative to his voluntary confession, but defendant insisted that in these conversations he was merely “carrying on and joking.” The evidence, being thus in conflict, presented a question for the determination of the jury. It was amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered. The several exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court are wholly without merit, and need not be discussed. No error *196 appearing upon the trial of this case, and the record also being without error, the judgment of conviction in the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 679, 21 Ala. App. 195, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brogden-v-state-alactapp-1925.