Browder v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Browder v. State

109 So. 558, 21 Ala. App. 503, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 254

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1926

Docket4 Div. 210.

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 558 (Browder 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

Browder v. State, 109 So. 558, 21 Ala. App. 503, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 254 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The conviction was under those counts charging the possession of a still, and the evidence showed the presence on and about defendant’s premises of the several parts of a still and barrels that had contained the stuff from which liquor is made. The statements by a witness for the state, in response to inquiry, that those barrels look to have been just brought up there and set in the old house where they were found, was not the expression of an unauthorized conclusion, but the shorthand rendition of a fact which could not be reproduced and made apparent to the jury. Hunter v. State, 20 Ala. App. 152, 101 So. 100.

“No evidence” charges are properly refused. Suttle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 198, 96 So. 90; Conn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 209, 96 So. 640.

There is no error in refusing charges which relate to counts of the indictment upon which there was an acquittal. Culpepper v. State, 19 Ala. App. 387, 97 So. 611.

A charge predicating an acquittal upon the hypothesis that the jury be of. the opinion that some other than defendant may have had possession of the still is bad. Possession may be joint, and each joint possessor is guilty under the law.

The evidence was circumstantial, but *504 entirely capable of supporting an inference of defendant’s guilt. Eor the court to have affirmatively instructed tlie jury in defendant’s favor would have been an invasion of the jury’s province.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The conviction was under those counts charging the possession of a still, and the evidence showed the presence on and about defendant’s premises of the several parts of a still and barrels that had contained the stuff from which liquor is made. The statements by a witness for the state, in response to inquiry, that those barrels look to have been just brought up there and set in the old house where they were found, was not the expression of an unauthorized conclusion, but the shorthand rendition of a fact which could not be reproduced and made apparent to the jury. Hunter v. State, 20 Ala. App. 152, 101 So. 100.

“No evidence” charges are properly refused. Suttle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 198, 96 So. 90; Conn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 209, 96 So. 640.

There is no error in refusing charges which relate to counts of the indictment upon which there was an acquittal. Culpepper v. State, 19 Ala. App. 387, 97 So. 611.

A charge predicating an acquittal upon the hypothesis that the jury be of. the opinion that some other than defendant may have had possession of the still is bad. Possession may be joint, and each joint possessor is guilty under the law.

The evidence was circumstantial, but *504 entirely capable of supporting an inference of defendant’s guilt. Eor the court to have affirmatively instructed tlie jury in defendant’s favor would have been an invasion of the jury’s province.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 558, 21 Ala. App. 503, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browder-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack