Elmore v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Elmore v. State

109 So. 114, 21 Ala. App. 410

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1926

Docket8 Div. 349.

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 109 So. 114 (Elmore 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

Elmore v. State, 109 So. 114, 21 Ala. App. 410 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

We have held in many eases that the mere presence of a person at a still was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attends a defendant charged with, and who is on trial for, a criminal offense. Biddle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 563, 99 So. 59; Biddle v. State, 20 Ala. App. 49, 100 So. 572. This general statement, while still adhered to, cannot be so extended as to invade the province of the jury in passing upon the guilt or innocence of a defendant, whose acts or conduct raises other presumptions tending to connect him with the manufacture of whisky or the possession of a still. Wherever a defendant is shown to be present at a still, any fact or circumstance, however slight, tending to show participation either as a principal or as aider or abettor may authorize the jury to find a verdict of guilt which will not be disturbed on appeal. In this case there was evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant was a principal, and the general charge was properly refused.

There was evidence justifying a conviction under either count of the indictment, and hence the general charge as to either count was properly refused.

The comment of the solicitor was an answer to an argument of defendant, and hence was free from error.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed:

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

SAMFORD, J.

We have held in many eases that the mere presence of a person at a still was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attends a defendant charged with, and who is on trial for, a criminal offense. Biddle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 563, 99 So. 59; Biddle v. State, 20 Ala. App. 49, 100 So. 572. This general statement, while still adhered to, cannot be so extended as to invade the province of the jury in passing upon the guilt or innocence of a defendant, whose acts or conduct raises other presumptions tending to connect him with the manufacture of whisky or the possession of a still. Wherever a defendant is shown to be present at a still, any fact or circumstance, however slight, tending to show participation either as a principal or as aider or abettor may authorize the jury to find a verdict of guilt which will not be disturbed on appeal. In this case there was evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant was a principal, and the general charge was properly refused.

There was evidence justifying a conviction under either count of the indictment, and hence the general charge as to either count was properly refused.

The comment of the solicitor was an answer to an argument of defendant, and hence was free from error.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 114, 21 Ala. App. 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmore-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack