Campbell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Campbell v. State

146 So. 82, 25 Ala. App. 324, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 19

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1933

Docket8 Div. 485.

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 82 (Campbell 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

Campbell v. State, 146 So. 82, 25 Ala. App. 324, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 19 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This appellant was tried in the lower court upon an affidavit which was sworn out by the sheriff and charged appellant with a violation of the prohibition law by having whisky in his possession, etc.

We have carefully read the evidence in this case, and are at a loss to understand how a conviction could be rested thereon. It was disclosed by this evidence that hidden in some vines quite a distance from the defendant’s home the sheriff found a gallon and a quart of whisky. So far as the evidence goes, the qjlace where the whisky was found was accessible to every one, and there is nothing in any part of the evidence even tending to show any connection with the whisky by this appellant or that he had any knowledge thereof. Under this evidence he should have been promptly discharged by the court, and the court’s ruling in not sustaining defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence is error to a reversal. The remarks of this court in the case of Talbot v. State, 23 Ala. App. 559, 129 So. 323, are peculiarly applicable to the case at bar. See, also, Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Williams v. State, 22 Ala. App. 425, 116 So. 413 ; Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202.

Upon authority of Talbot v. State, supra, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed, and the defendant (appellant) is hereby discharged from custody. Code 1923, § 3259.

Reversed and rendered.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This appellant was tried in the lower court upon an affidavit which was sworn out by the sheriff and charged appellant with a violation of the prohibition law by having whisky in his possession, etc.

We have carefully read the evidence in this case, and are at a loss to understand how a conviction could be rested thereon. It was disclosed by this evidence that hidden in some vines quite a distance from the defendant’s home the sheriff found a gallon and a quart of whisky. So far as the evidence goes, the qjlace where the whisky was found was accessible to every one, and there is nothing in any part of the evidence even tending to show any connection with the whisky by this appellant or that he had any knowledge thereof. Under this evidence he should have been promptly discharged by the court, and the court’s ruling in not sustaining defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence is error to a reversal. The remarks of this court in the case of Talbot v. State, 23 Ala. App. 559, 129 So. 323, are peculiarly applicable to the case at bar. See, also, Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Williams v. State, 22 Ala. App. 425, 116 So. 413 ; Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202.

Upon authority of Talbot v. State, supra, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed, and the defendant (appellant) is hereby discharged from custody. Code 1923, § 3259.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 82, 25 Ala. App. 324, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack