Fillmore v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Fillmore v. State

92 So. 94, 18 Ala. App. 334, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 268

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1921

Docket5 Div. 360.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 So. 94 (Fillmore 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

Fillmore v. State, 92 So. 94, 18 Ala. App. 334, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 268 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that defendant manufactured, sold, gave away, or had in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or a device or substitute therefor, for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited beverages. The second 'count charged a manufacturing of the liquor. -The defendant was convicted on the first count of the indictment, which of itself is an acquittal of the charge under. the second count.

We have carefully read and re-read the evidence, and cannot find therein sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence, which the law raises for the protection of defendants on trial for crime. The pro *335 hibition laws are good ' laws. The courts should enforce them in such manner as to accomplish the good for which they were designed, but convictions should not be bad or permitted to stand unless the evidence is strong and convincing, lest in supporting one evil we lapse into another of even greater danger to our liberty. The general affirmative charge as to count 1 should have been given.

The judgment 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

SAMFORD, J.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that defendant manufactured, sold, gave away, or had in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or a device or substitute therefor, for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited beverages. The second 'count charged a manufacturing of the liquor. -The defendant was convicted on the first count of the indictment, which of itself is an acquittal of the charge under. the second count.

We have carefully read and re-read the evidence, and cannot find therein sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence, which the law raises for the protection of defendants on trial for crime. The pro *335 hibition laws are good ' laws. The courts should enforce them in such manner as to accomplish the good for which they were designed, but convictions should not be bad or permitted to stand unless the evidence is strong and convincing, lest in supporting one evil we lapse into another of even greater danger to our liberty. The general affirmative charge as to count 1 should have been given.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 94, 18 Ala. App. 334, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fillmore-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack