Gilchrist v. State

101 So. 906, 20 Ala. App. 233, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 252
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided July 22, 1924·No. 8 Div. 171.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this case is to the effect that defendant possessed at least one-half pint of whisky, which he sold and delivered to the' state’s witness. This is a violation of the statute. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., v. Harbin, 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426.

The charge, “if there is a probability of defendant’s innocence, you should find him not guilty,” while here insisted on as error, appears from the record to have been given. Moreover, this charge has been held bad in Edwards v. State. 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179, and consistently since that time.

Refused charge 2 is misleading.

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

Gilchrist v. State, 101 So. 906, 20 Ala. App. 233, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 252 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

101 So. 906 (Gilchrist v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duncan v. State
109 So. 554 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Ex Parte Gilchrist
101 So. 907 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)