Dunn v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dunn v. State

99 So. 159, 99 So. 154, 19 Ala. App. 576, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 41

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1924

Docket6 Div. 277.

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 99 So. 159 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 99 So. 159, 99 So. 154, 19 Ala. App. 576, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 41 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The appellant was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

*577 It was permissible for the state to sliow that Lem Barrentine was a deputy sheriff of Tuscaloosa county at the time he raided the still.

Where objection was sustained to a question ashed a state’s witness on cross-examination, hut the witness answered the question, the defendant, getting full benefit of the answer, was not prejudiced by the ruling of the court, and such ruling is not reversible error.

That portion of the argument of the solicitor was as follows: “I tell you that this defendant is guilty” — was merely an argument of the inference drawn from the testimony by the solicitor, and was not improper, and should not work a reversal of the case.

Charge 2 requested by the defendant states a correct proposition of law, and should have been given. Upon a careful reading of the testimony we find that a conviction of the defendant did depend upon the testimony of a single witness, the testimony of Barrentine being the only evidence in any way connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime. In a criminal case the jury are not authorized to find a verdict of guilty on the testimony of a single witness if they have a reasonable doubt of the truth of his statements. Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 5 South. 558; Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277, 90 South. 434; Estes v. State, 18 Ala. App. 606, 93 South. 217.

This opinion is substituted for the original opinion.

Eor the error indicated, the application for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court 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

FOSTER, J.

The appellant was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

*577 It was permissible for the state to sliow that Lem Barrentine was a deputy sheriff of Tuscaloosa county at the time he raided the still.

Where objection was sustained to a question ashed a state’s witness on cross-examination, hut the witness answered the question, the defendant, getting full benefit of the answer, was not prejudiced by the ruling of the court, and such ruling is not reversible error.

That portion of the argument of the solicitor was as follows: “I tell you that this defendant is guilty” — was merely an argument of the inference drawn from the testimony by the solicitor, and was not improper, and should not work a reversal of the case.

Charge 2 requested by the defendant states a correct proposition of law, and should have been given. Upon a careful reading of the testimony we find that a conviction of the defendant did depend upon the testimony of a single witness, the testimony of Barrentine being the only evidence in any way connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime. In a criminal case the jury are not authorized to find a verdict of guilty on the testimony of a single witness if they have a reasonable doubt of the truth of his statements. Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 5 South. 558; Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277, 90 South. 434; Estes v. State, 18 Ala. App. 606, 93 South. 217.

This opinion is substituted for the original opinion.

Eor the error indicated, the application for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 159, 99 So. 154, 19 Ala. App. 576, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack