Dawkins v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dawkins v. State

99 So. 661, 19 Ala. App. 589, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 53

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1924

Docket3 Div. 463.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 99 So. 661 (Dawkins 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

Dawkins v. State, 99 So. 661, 19 Ala. App. 589, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 53 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged the manufacture of prohibited liquors; the second count charged the possession of a still.

*590 The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant and one Hawk Hall, together with some negroes, were working at certain stills about 10 o’clock at night, and that whisky was being manufactured. There were four stills found in operation in the woods about two miles from the defendant’s home.

[1, 2] The evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of the guilt vel non of the defendant. Stewart v. State (Ala. App.) 97 South. 684; 1 Whitfield v. State (Ala. App.) 97 South. 168. 2 It was competent for the state to show what the defendant was doing at the time the officers raided the still.

[3] It was also competent for the state to prove as a part of the res gestre the acts of another person who was with the defendant at the still.

[4, 5] One Herbert Williams, a witness for defendant, testified that on the night the still was found by,the officers, the defendant was at Mac Dawkins’ house; that witness left there about 12 o’clock and left the defendant there. It was not error for the court to permit the solicitor for the state to ask the witness on cross-examination, “Who else did you leave there?” A broad latitude is allowed on cross-examination. Questions may be asked to test the witness’ knowledge of the facts about which he was testifying, his accuracy, or his sincerity.

[6] No exception was reserved to the court’s oral charge, no charge in writing was requested by the defendant, no motion for new trial was made, and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict cannot be tested for the first time on appeal. Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App. 390, 92 South. 239.

There is no error in the record. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 389.

2

Ante, p. 326.

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

FOSTER, J.

The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged the manufacture of prohibited liquors; the second count charged the possession of a still.

*590 The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant and one Hawk Hall, together with some negroes, were working at certain stills about 10 o’clock at night, and that whisky was being manufactured. There were four stills found in operation in the woods about two miles from the defendant’s home.

[1, 2] The evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of the guilt vel non of the defendant. Stewart v. State (Ala. App.) 97 South. 684; 1 Whitfield v. State (Ala. App.) 97 South. 168. 2 It was competent for the state to show what the defendant was doing at the time the officers raided the still.

[3] It was also competent for the state to prove as a part of the res gestre the acts of another person who was with the defendant at the still.

[4, 5] One Herbert Williams, a witness for defendant, testified that on the night the still was found by,the officers, the defendant was at Mac Dawkins’ house; that witness left there about 12 o’clock and left the defendant there. It was not error for the court to permit the solicitor for the state to ask the witness on cross-examination, “Who else did you leave there?” A broad latitude is allowed on cross-examination. Questions may be asked to test the witness’ knowledge of the facts about which he was testifying, his accuracy, or his sincerity.

[6] No exception was reserved to the court’s oral charge, no charge in writing was requested by the defendant, no motion for new trial was made, and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict cannot be tested for the first time on appeal. Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App. 390, 92 South. 239.

There is no error in the record. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 389.

2

Ante, p. 326.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 661, 19 Ala. App. 589, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawkins-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack