Edmunds v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Edmunds v. State

81 So. 847, 17 Ala. App. 69, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 90

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1919

Docket5 Div. 295.

StatusPublished

This text of 81 So. 847 (Edmunds 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

Edmunds v. State, 81 So. 847, 17 Ala. App. 69, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 90 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition law. The jury assessed a fine against him of $500, and the court added four months’ hard labor for the county as additional punishment.

[1, 2] The evidence was in sharp conflict, and the only error insisted upon is the ruling of the court upon the introduction of a note which was found lying on top of 4% cases of beer alleged to have been that of the defendant. The defendant’s contention in this connection is without merit, and the cases cited by him are not applicable here, nor do they afford any authority for the question involved. In response to the question by the solicitor'to Sheriff Lindsay, who had testified that he made a search of the room of the defendant, “Did you find anything there?” he answered, “We found 4% cases of beer, with this note on top of it.” The note was as follows:

.“Frank: Please put this beer in the lounge and make Elvira burn the boxes and go to sleep and don’t talk. [Signed]. B.”

It was also shown that there was a lonnge in the same room, and that 91 bottles of beer were found inside of the lounge.

*70 It is not shown-'that the note was written by the defendant or at his instance, or that he had anything to do with the placing of the note there other than the evidence to the effect that he had .stolen the beer that was recovered. The note which was found on top of the beer was as much admissible' as a label on the bottle, or a tag on the boxes. Johnson v. State, 78 South. 716. 1 In other words, it was open toi the jury to find that this note was connected with the presence of the beer at this particular place, and was a part of the circumstances surrounding its presence there. If the appellant feared, as he' now complains, that the note was evidence against him, he should have requested the court to- limit the effect of the evidence by appropriate instructions. However, the exception goes to the admissibility of the note, and this does not affect- its admissibility. The court did not err in this connection.

[3] One other exception appears in the record, and relates to the court’s sustaining the state’s, objection to the introduction of an alleged contract between defendant’s' brother and one Graves, but the contract alleged to have been offered in evidence is not set out in the bill of exceptions, and therefore we are unable to say, in the absence of a knowledge of the contents thereof, that there was error in the ruling of the court in excluding it.

No error appearing in the record and the trial having been had without error of a prejudicial nature to the defendant, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

16 Ala. App. 453.

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

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition law. The jury assessed a fine against him of $500, and the court added four months’ hard labor for the county as additional punishment.

[1, 2] The evidence was in sharp conflict, and the only error insisted upon is the ruling of the court upon the introduction of a note which was found lying on top of 4% cases of beer alleged to have been that of the defendant. The defendant’s contention in this connection is without merit, and the cases cited by him are not applicable here, nor do they afford any authority for the question involved. In response to the question by the solicitor'to Sheriff Lindsay, who had testified that he made a search of the room of the defendant, “Did you find anything there?” he answered, “We found 4% cases of beer, with this note on top of it.” The note was as follows:

.“Frank: Please put this beer in the lounge and make Elvira burn the boxes and go to sleep and don’t talk. [Signed]. B.”

It was also shown that there was a lonnge in the same room, and that 91 bottles of beer were found inside of the lounge.

*70 It is not shown-'that the note was written by the defendant or at his instance, or that he had anything to do with the placing of the note there other than the evidence to the effect that he had .stolen the beer that was recovered. The note which was found on top of the beer was as much admissible' as a label on the bottle, or a tag on the boxes. Johnson v. State, 78 South. 716. 1 In other words, it was open toi the jury to find that this note was connected with the presence of the beer at this particular place, and was a part of the circumstances surrounding its presence there. If the appellant feared, as he' now complains, that the note was evidence against him, he should have requested the court to- limit the effect of the evidence by appropriate instructions. However, the exception goes to the admissibility of the note, and this does not affect- its admissibility. The court did not err in this connection.

[3] One other exception appears in the record, and relates to the court’s sustaining the state’s, objection to the introduction of an alleged contract between defendant’s' brother and one Graves, but the contract alleged to have been offered in evidence is not set out in the bill of exceptions, and therefore we are unable to say, in the absence of a knowledge of the contents thereof, that there was error in the ruling of the court in excluding it.

No error appearing in the record and the trial having been had without error of a prejudicial nature to the defendant, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

16 Ala. App. 453.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 847, 17 Ala. App. 69, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmunds-v-state-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack