Holland v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Holland v. State

109 So. 885, 21 Ala. App. 520, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 268

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1926

Docket4 Div. 134.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 109 So. 885 (Holland 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

Holland v. State, 109 So. 885, 21 Ala. App. 520, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 268 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this case tends to show the possession of prohibited liquors at several different places at or near the place of residence of the defendant. The defendant in his brief insists that each of the places at which whisky was found was a separate offense, and that therefore evidence of one of these offenses excluded inquiry as to others. To sustain this we are cited to the cases of Joyner v. State, 16 Ala. App. 240, 77 So. 78; Ex parte Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419, 73 So. 35, and other cases of similiar import. These eases assert correct propositions of law, but are not applicable to the case at bar. If there was whisky in the smokehouse, some just below the house under a log, and a quart lying in the water under a tree, and • all of this was in defendant’s possession at the same time, there was only one possession, and evidence tending to prove this was admissible, and evidence having been admitted tending to prove this no election on the part of the state, was necessary. Collier v. State, 16 Ala. App. 425, 78 So. 419; Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991.

The remarks of the trial judge, made by him in connection with his ruling as to the admissibility of certain testimony, was upon objection of defendant withdrawn, and hence could not now be made the basis of reversible error. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 So. 499. The incident, as shown by the record, would not justify the granting of defendant’s motion to enter a verdict of not guilty, nor for the entering of a mistrial, nor for a withdrawal of the case from the jury and granting a continuance. The incident is *521 sought to be magnified into prejudicial error. We do not tbink so.

’ The several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony and in refusing requested charges are examined, and found to be 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.

The evidence in this case tends to show the possession of prohibited liquors at several different places at or near the place of residence of the defendant. The defendant in his brief insists that each of the places at which whisky was found was a separate offense, and that therefore evidence of one of these offenses excluded inquiry as to others. To sustain this we are cited to the cases of Joyner v. State, 16 Ala. App. 240, 77 So. 78; Ex parte Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419, 73 So. 35, and other cases of similiar import. These eases assert correct propositions of law, but are not applicable to the case at bar. If there was whisky in the smokehouse, some just below the house under a log, and a quart lying in the water under a tree, and • all of this was in defendant’s possession at the same time, there was only one possession, and evidence tending to prove this was admissible, and evidence having been admitted tending to prove this no election on the part of the state, was necessary. Collier v. State, 16 Ala. App. 425, 78 So. 419; Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991.

The remarks of the trial judge, made by him in connection with his ruling as to the admissibility of certain testimony, was upon objection of defendant withdrawn, and hence could not now be made the basis of reversible error. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 So. 499. The incident, as shown by the record, would not justify the granting of defendant’s motion to enter a verdict of not guilty, nor for the entering of a mistrial, nor for a withdrawal of the case from the jury and granting a continuance. The incident is *521 sought to be magnified into prejudicial error. We do not tbink so.

’ The several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony and in refusing requested charges are examined, and found to be 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. 885, 21 Ala. App. 520, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack