Carmichael v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Carmichael v. State

65 So. 694, 11 Ala. App. 209, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 46

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 16, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 65 So. 694 (Carmichael 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

Carmichael v. State, 65 So. 694, 11 Ala. App. 209, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 46 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

We are of opinion that the evidence was ample in its inferences to justify the trial court in refusing the general affirmative charge; its action in refusing Avhich is the only point presented by the record. — Dunn v. State, 8 Ala. App. 383, 62 South. 379; Watson v. State, 8 Ala. App. 414, 62 South. 997; Foshee v. State, 9 Ala. App. 77, 63 South. 753; Freeny v. City of Jasper, 8 Ala. App. 469, 62 South. 385; Kinsaul v. State, 8 Ala. App. 405, 62 South. 990; Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310.

Pretermitting a consideration of the other incriminating tendencies of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that, if the jury believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,.that the place at which the defendant was shown, without dispute, to have been keeping the large quantity of prohibited liquors found in his possession Avas a place not used “exclusively” as a dwelling (Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310), then the mere keeping by him of such liquors in such place was prima facie eAddence that they were kept for illegal disposition (Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 64, § 4; Stokes v. State, supra). There were facts in evidence tending to show that such place was not used exclusively as a dwelling (Stokes v. State, supra); and for these reasons, as well as for others pointed out in the cases cited, the court committed no error in refusing the affirmative charge.

The judgment of conviction is consequently affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

THOMAS, J.

We are of opinion that the evidence was ample in its inferences to justify the trial court in refusing the general affirmative charge; its action in refusing Avhich is the only point presented by the record. — Dunn v. State, 8 Ala. App. 383, 62 South. 379; Watson v. State, 8 Ala. App. 414, 62 South. 997; Foshee v. State, 9 Ala. App. 77, 63 South. 753; Freeny v. City of Jasper, 8 Ala. App. 469, 62 South. 385; Kinsaul v. State, 8 Ala. App. 405, 62 South. 990; Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310.

Pretermitting a consideration of the other incriminating tendencies of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that, if the jury believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,.that the place at which the defendant was shown, without dispute, to have been keeping the large quantity of prohibited liquors found in his possession Avas a place not used “exclusively” as a dwelling (Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310), then the mere keeping by him of such liquors in such place was prima facie eAddence that they were kept for illegal disposition (Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 64, § 4; Stokes v. State, supra). There were facts in evidence tending to show that such place was not used exclusively as a dwelling (Stokes v. State, supra); and for these reasons, as well as for others pointed out in the cases cited, the court committed no error in refusing the affirmative charge.

The judgment of conviction is consequently affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 694, 11 Ala. App. 209, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmichael-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack