Huckabaa v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Huckabaa v. State

125 So. 202, 23 Ala. App. 333, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 267

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1929

Docket4 Div. 558.

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 125 So. 202 (Huckabaa 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

Huckabaa v. State, 125 So. 202, 23 Ala. App. 333, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 267 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

■ SAMFORD, J.

The conviction in this case was had before the court sitting as a jury, upon the testimony of two deputy sheriffs, who went into defendant’s home in his absence, without warrant, and searched the house. They found in a receptable in the dining table and under one of the leaves several bottles containing whisky. The defendant’s wife was present, but the defendant was not present, and there is no evidence connecting the defendant with the whisky. There is no guilty scienter shown, and the defendant should have been discharged. Tuggle v. State, 22 Ala. App. 89, 112 So. 540; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206. The case of Strickland v. State, 20 Ala. App. 600, 104 So. 351, is not in conflict with the foregoing. In the Strickland Case there were other facts and circumstances tending to prove a guilty knowledge, while in the instant case there is none. There must be a guilty scienter before a defendant can be convicted of crime, and this must be established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence will not likely be changed on another trial, so that it would be useless to remand the cause.

A judgment will here be rendered reversing the judgment and discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

■ SAMFORD, J.

The conviction in this case was had before the court sitting as a jury, upon the testimony of two deputy sheriffs, who went into defendant’s home in his absence, without warrant, and searched the house. They found in a receptable in the dining table and under one of the leaves several bottles containing whisky. The defendant’s wife was present, but the defendant was not present, and there is no evidence connecting the defendant with the whisky. There is no guilty scienter shown, and the defendant should have been discharged. Tuggle v. State, 22 Ala. App. 89, 112 So. 540; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206. The case of Strickland v. State, 20 Ala. App. 600, 104 So. 351, is not in conflict with the foregoing. In the Strickland Case there were other facts and circumstances tending to prove a guilty knowledge, while in the instant case there is none. There must be a guilty scienter before a defendant can be convicted of crime, and this must be established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence will not likely be changed on another trial, so that it would be useless to remand the cause.

A judgment will here be rendered reversing the judgment and discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 202, 23 Ala. App. 333, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huckabaa-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack