Hart v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hart v. State

89 So. 828, 18 Ala. App. 249, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 202

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 1921

Docket4 Div. 678.

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 828 (Hart 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

Hart v. State, 89 So. 828, 18 Ala. App. 249, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 202 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted under an indictment which charges that he did possess, or have in possession alcoholic or spirituous liquors. The only question presented is appellant’s objection and exception to the following part of the court’s oral charge:

“If he did have, and you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of that fact, it is your conviction and judgment based upon the testimony in the case, that he did have such spirituous or alcoholic liquors on that occasion in his possession, in that event your verdict would be guilty.”

This part oí the charge, taken with the charge as a whole, clearly instructs the jury that, before they would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty, they must believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The charge is not open to the criticism that the judgment and conviction of the jury may be reached without believing from the evidence the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant had possession of the prohibited liquors, and the jury believed this fact, from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it must follow as the night follows the day that it was their judgment, their conviction, that such was the fact, and the charge does no more, in effect, than to so state.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted under an indictment which charges that he did possess, or have in possession alcoholic or spirituous liquors. The only question presented is appellant’s objection and exception to the following part of the court’s oral charge:

“If he did have, and you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of that fact, it is your conviction and judgment based upon the testimony in the case, that he did have such spirituous or alcoholic liquors on that occasion in his possession, in that event your verdict would be guilty.”

This part oí the charge, taken with the charge as a whole, clearly instructs the jury that, before they would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty, they must believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The charge is not open to the criticism that the judgment and conviction of the jury may be reached without believing from the evidence the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant had possession of the prohibited liquors, and the jury believed this fact, from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it must follow as the night follows the day that it was their judgment, their conviction, that such was the fact, and the charge does no more, in effect, than to so state.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 828, 18 Ala. App. 249, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-alactapp-1921.