Haralson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Haralson v. State

120 So. 924, 23 Ala. App. 634

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket5 Div. 714.

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 924 (Haralson 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

Haralson v. State, 120 So. 924, 23 Ala. App. 634 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The undisputed evidence in this case establishes the corpus delicti. The only question involved was the defendant’s participation in the operation of the still and as to his possession thereof. The incriminating circumstances disclosed by the evidence were entirely too numerous to entitle the accused to the affirmative charge. There is no merit whatever in appellant’s .insistence in this connection. A clear-cut issue of fact was presented for the determination of the jury, and this evidence in our opinion was ample to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

The trial proceeded throughout without reversible error. No ruling of the court was erroneously injurious to the substantial rights of the defendant. It would serve no good purpose to here recite in detail the evidence in this case. The exceptions reserved to the several rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence are so clearly without merit, the points of decision involved need no discussion. Nothing but the simplest propositions of law are involved, and similar points have been so many times discussed and decided by- *635 the appellate courts of this state, we shall refrain from so doing here.

The record is in all things regular. No reversible error appearing upon the trial of this case, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The undisputed evidence in this case establishes the corpus delicti. The only question involved was the defendant’s participation in the operation of the still and as to his possession thereof. The incriminating circumstances disclosed by the evidence were entirely too numerous to entitle the accused to the affirmative charge. There is no merit whatever in appellant’s .insistence in this connection. A clear-cut issue of fact was presented for the determination of the jury, and this evidence in our opinion was ample to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

The trial proceeded throughout without reversible error. No ruling of the court was erroneously injurious to the substantial rights of the defendant. It would serve no good purpose to here recite in detail the evidence in this case. The exceptions reserved to the several rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence are so clearly without merit, the points of decision involved need no discussion. Nothing but the simplest propositions of law are involved, and similar points have been so many times discussed and decided by- *635 the appellate courts of this state, we shall refrain from so doing here.

The record is in all things regular. No reversible error appearing upon the trial of this case, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 924, 23 Ala. App. 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haralson-v-state-alactapp-1929.