Coggin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Coggin v. State

122 So. 186, 23 Ala. App. 135, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 128

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1929

Docket5 Div. 748.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 122 So. 186 (Coggin 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

Coggin v. State, 122 So. 186, 23 Ala. App. 135, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 128 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence discloses the finding of three empty kegs under defendant’s barn that had the odor of whisky and the finding of a quart fruit jar containing one tablespoon full of whisky under the floor of an outhouse located about 75 yards from defendant’s store, not inclosed and used by the public. The defendant was not at home when the search was made, and there is no evidence tending to connect him with the possession of whisky other than is above set out.

It is not a violation of law in this state to possess a keg or a hundred kegs having the odor of whisky on or about them. So that, the prosecution must revolve around the tablespoon full of whisky under the floor of tIle (We use the word toilet, but in the country it is not usually called by that name, and this was in the country.)'

We are familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the possession of the smallest amount of whisky is a violation of the prohibition statutes, but to convict there must be a possession coupled with a guilty scienter. Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206. There is no such evidence in this record. The little house was not locked, was not in any inclosure, was in a grove used indiscriminately by those living near, and nobody testified to ever seeing defendant in it. Suspicion is not sufficient upon which to convict men of crime. For the error in refusing to defendant the general charge, 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, J.

The evidence discloses the finding of three empty kegs under defendant’s barn that had the odor of whisky and the finding of a quart fruit jar containing one tablespoon full of whisky under the floor of an outhouse located about 75 yards from defendant’s store, not inclosed and used by the public. The defendant was not at home when the search was made, and there is no evidence tending to connect him with the possession of whisky other than is above set out.

It is not a violation of law in this state to possess a keg or a hundred kegs having the odor of whisky on or about them. So that, the prosecution must revolve around the tablespoon full of whisky under the floor of tIle (We use the word toilet, but in the country it is not usually called by that name, and this was in the country.)'

We are familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the possession of the smallest amount of whisky is a violation of the prohibition statutes, but to convict there must be a possession coupled with a guilty scienter. Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206. There is no such evidence in this record. The little house was not locked, was not in any inclosure, was in a grove used indiscriminately by those living near, and nobody testified to ever seeing defendant in it. Suspicion is not sufficient upon which to convict men of crime. For the error in refusing to defendant the general charge, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 186, 23 Ala. App. 135, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coggin-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack