Campbell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Campbell v. State

182 So. 89, 28 Ala. App. 240, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 154

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1938

Docket8 Div. 626.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 182 So. 89 (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, 182 So. 89, 28 Ala. App. 240, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 154 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The prosecution was begun by affidavit on the 11th day of May, 1935; charging the defendant with the'unlawful possession of whiskey. This defendant was arrested on the warrant issued on the 11th day of May, 1935, and some two and a half years after-wards he was put on trial.

The evidence for the State tended to prove that the Sheriff and three of his deputies went to defendant’s house, which they searched, and finding no whiskey in the house, they went on the outside and behind a dog house one of the deputies put his hand in a hole in the side of the dwelling and pulled out a Coca-Cola bottle half full of whiskey. There was no evidence tending to prove that this defendant knew the whiskey was there, or that he had any connection with it. There was evidence that there were other parties who might have placed the whiskey at the place it was found.

We have read this record, and while there may be room for suspicion connecting this defendant with a knowledge of the fact that the half Coca-Cola bottle of whis..key was in the place where it was found, there is no such evidence as would authorize a jury to render a verdict of guilty. The presumption of innocence attends a defendant during his trial and until the State produces evidence which convinces the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of his guilt. This presumption" of innocence is real, and not to be ignored. The law recognizes *241 this by requiring a high 'degree of proof before a man on trial for a criminal charge can be convicted: Eldridge v: State, 24 Ala.App. 395, 135 So. 646; Scott v. City of Troy, 24 Ala.App. 453, 136 So. 432; Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188, 155 So. 388.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The prosecution was begun by affidavit on the 11th day of May, 1935; charging the defendant with the'unlawful possession of whiskey. This defendant was arrested on the warrant issued on the 11th day of May, 1935, and some two and a half years after-wards he was put on trial.

The evidence for the State tended to prove that the Sheriff and three of his deputies went to defendant’s house, which they searched, and finding no whiskey in the house, they went on the outside and behind a dog house one of the deputies put his hand in a hole in the side of the dwelling and pulled out a Coca-Cola bottle half full of whiskey. There was no evidence tending to prove that this defendant knew the whiskey was there, or that he had any connection with it. There was evidence that there were other parties who might have placed the whiskey at the place it was found.

We have read this record, and while there may be room for suspicion connecting this defendant with a knowledge of the fact that the half Coca-Cola bottle of whis..key was in the place where it was found, there is no such evidence as would authorize a jury to render a verdict of guilty. The presumption of innocence attends a defendant during his trial and until the State produces evidence which convinces the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of his guilt. This presumption" of innocence is real, and not to be ignored. The law recognizes *241 this by requiring a high 'degree of proof before a man on trial for a criminal charge can be convicted: Eldridge v: State, 24 Ala.App. 395, 135 So. 646; Scott v. City of Troy, 24 Ala.App. 453, 136 So. 432; Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188, 155 So. 388.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 89, 28 Ala. App. 240, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-state-alactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack