Burroughs v. State

139 So. 115, 24 Ala. App. 579, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 8
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 12, 1932·No. 5 Div. 853.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this record has been read and considered en bane. We have been unable to find any evidence which would warrant a verdict connecting this defendant with the criminal possession of the whisky found on his premises.

As has been pointed out many times by this court, a constructive possession alone is not sufficient to justify a conviction. There must, in addition to such possession, be a guilty scienter.

In line with numerous decisions of this court, we hold -that the defendant was entitled to the general charge.

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

Burroughs v. State, 139 So. 115, 24 Ala. App. 579, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 8 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

139 So. 115 (Burroughs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnold v. State
339 So. 2d 162 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Adkins v. State
93 So. 2d 519 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1956)
Snodgrass v. State
198 So. 869 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)
Walls v. State
198 So. 151 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)
Pate v. State
162 So. 571 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)
Coker v. State
143 So. 206 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1932)