Byrd v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Byrd v. State

113 So. 480, 22 Ala. App. 147, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 105

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1927

Docket8 Div. 601.

StatusPublished

This text of 113 So. 480 (Byrd 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

Byrd v. State, 113 So. 480, 22 Ala. App. 147, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 105 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence in this case discloses that parts of a disassembled still were found in the neighborhood of this defendant’s place of residence, and that said parts were scattered along a path that led from defendant’s home to a spring, some distance away. There was no evidence showing or tending to show any connection whatever of this appellant with the possession of these contraband articles, if contraband they were, and, in the absence of some testimony to connect the defendant with the unlawful possession, a conviction against him for such possession would be erroneous and cannot be permitted to stand. Under the whole evidence in this case, the accused was entitled to the general affirmative charge. This charge was requested and refused. Its refusal was error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence in this case discloses that parts of a disassembled still were found in the neighborhood of this defendant’s place of residence, and that said parts were scattered along a path that led from defendant’s home to a spring, some distance away. There was no evidence showing or tending to show any connection whatever of this appellant with the possession of these contraband articles, if contraband they were, and, in the absence of some testimony to connect the defendant with the unlawful possession, a conviction against him for such possession would be erroneous and cannot be permitted to stand. Under the whole evidence in this case, the accused was entitled to the general affirmative charge. This charge was requested and refused. Its refusal was error.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 480, 22 Ala. App. 147, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-state-alactapp-1927.