Jackson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

92 So. 909, 18 Ala. App. 422, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 109

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1922

Docket8 Div. 838.

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 909 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 92 So. 909, 18 Ala. App. 422, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 109 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained two counts. Count 1 charged the defendant with distilling, making, or manufacturing prohibited liquors, naming them. The second count, omitting the formal parts, charged that after September 30, 1919, he did have in his possession a still, apparatus, etc., to he used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors. The verdict of the jury was, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty .as charged in the second count.” The judgment of the court followed this verdict. The defendant having been tried under an indictment containing two counts, and found guilty as to the second count only, the verdict of the jury operated as an acquittal of the charge contained in the first count.

Count 2 under which this defendant was convicted, is bad, and will not support the judgment of conviction based thereon. This identical question has been decided in Clark v. State, ante, p. 217, 90 South. 16.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained two counts. Count 1 charged the defendant with distilling, making, or manufacturing prohibited liquors, naming them. The second count, omitting the formal parts, charged that after September 30, 1919, he did have in his possession a still, apparatus, etc., to he used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors. The verdict of the jury was, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty .as charged in the second count.” The judgment of the court followed this verdict. The defendant having been tried under an indictment containing two counts, and found guilty as to the second count only, the verdict of the jury operated as an acquittal of the charge contained in the first count.

Count 2 under which this defendant was convicted, is bad, and will not support the judgment of conviction based thereon. This identical question has been decided in Clark v. State, ante, p. 217, 90 South. 16.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 909, 18 Ala. App. 422, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack