Calvert v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Calvert v. State

51 So. 311, 165 Ala. 99, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 13, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 51 So. 311 (Calvert v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calvert v. State, 51 So. 311, 165 Ala. 99, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 21 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

— Prosecution for selling whisky in the year 1908. Defendant was apprehended at the house of one James Mickens. The developments of that occasion were made the basis of this prosecution. Three or four [100]*100other negroes were present, and in the room were two empty jugs and several bottles of whisky. Proprietor Mickens testified that he had gone away earlier in the night, and that upon his return he found the negroes and the whisky in his house, where neither they nor it had been left. Upon the evidence of these facts, without more, as a predicate in the way of proof of the corpus deliciti of the offense charged, proof of an extrajudicial confession was admitted, and the appellant was convicted, all over his objection, made known in various ways and here renewed.

In Harden v. The State, 109 Ala. 50, 19 South. 194, the defendant was tried on a charge of misdemeanor. This court ruled that a mere confession would not authorize a conviction, unless, independent of the confession, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense had been committed, and that in the absence of such proof the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. An application of that rule to this case must result in a reversal of the judgment of conviction, and an order that the appellant be discharged.

Reversed and rendered.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Evans, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

— Prosecution for selling whisky in the year 1908. Defendant was apprehended at the house of one James Mickens. The developments of that occasion were made the basis of this prosecution. Three or four [100]*100other negroes were present, and in the room were two empty jugs and several bottles of whisky. Proprietor Mickens testified that he had gone away earlier in the night, and that upon his return he found the negroes and the whisky in his house, where neither they nor it had been left. Upon the evidence of these facts, without more, as a predicate in the way of proof of the corpus deliciti of the offense charged, proof of an extrajudicial confession was admitted, and the appellant was convicted, all over his objection, made known in various ways and here renewed.

In Harden v. The State, 109 Ala. 50, 19 South. 194, the defendant was tried on a charge of misdemeanor. This court ruled that a mere confession would not authorize a conviction, unless, independent of the confession, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense had been committed, and that in the absence of such proof the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. An application of that rule to this case must result in a reversal of the judgment of conviction, and an order that the appellant be discharged.

Reversed and rendered.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Evans, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 311, 165 Ala. 99, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvert-v-state-ala-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack