Cox v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cox v. State

147 So. 648, 25 Ala. App. 407, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 73

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1933

Docket4 Div. 982.

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 648 (Cox 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

Cox v. State, 147 So. 648, 25 Ala. App. 407, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 73 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case contained two counts, charging this appellant with distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic or spirituous liquors or beverages; and, with the possession of a still,, etc., to be used for that purpose. There was a verdict of guilty as charged in count 1 of the indictment, and judgment of conviction was accordingly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant first complains of the action of the court in' overruling his motion for a continuance which was based upon the grounds that one Burrell Franklin, a witness for defendant, was absent. The court put the state upon a showing for this witness, and there appears no abuse of. the discretion with which the court is invested in this connection. This insistence of error therefore cannot be sustained.

The corpus delicti was fully proven without dispute or conflict. Appellant insists that the court erred in refusing to him the general affirmative charge. Under the rule stated in Grimes v. State, 24 Ala. App. 378, 135 So. 652, the court was without authority to give said charge, as ■ there were three witnesses whose testimony tended to connect this appellant with the operation of the still. The defendant denied all connection with the still and its operation. This made a question of fact for the jury to deter *408 mine. This court is not vested with pardoning powers. We find no error in any ruling of the trial court; the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case contained two counts, charging this appellant with distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic or spirituous liquors or beverages; and, with the possession of a still,, etc., to be used for that purpose. There was a verdict of guilty as charged in count 1 of the indictment, and judgment of conviction was accordingly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant first complains of the action of the court in' overruling his motion for a continuance which was based upon the grounds that one Burrell Franklin, a witness for defendant, was absent. The court put the state upon a showing for this witness, and there appears no abuse of. the discretion with which the court is invested in this connection. This insistence of error therefore cannot be sustained.

The corpus delicti was fully proven without dispute or conflict. Appellant insists that the court erred in refusing to him the general affirmative charge. Under the rule stated in Grimes v. State, 24 Ala. App. 378, 135 So. 652, the court was without authority to give said charge, as ■ there were three witnesses whose testimony tended to connect this appellant with the operation of the still. The defendant denied all connection with the still and its operation. This made a question of fact for the jury to deter *408 mine. This court is not vested with pardoning powers. We find no error in any ruling of the trial court; the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 648, 25 Ala. App. 407, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack