Knight v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Knight v. State

118 So. 249, 22 Ala. App. 500, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 175

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1928

Docket5 Div. 696.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 So. 249 (Knight 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

Knight v. State, 118 So. 249, 22 Ala. App. 500, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 175 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The jury returned a general verdict finding the defendant guilty under an indictment which charged, in proper form and substance, the offenses of unlawfully having a still in possession and distilling prohibited liquors.

The conflicting evidence made a jury question. No special charges were requested, nor was the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to convict otherwise raised so far as this record discloses.

But one point of decision is presented. The defendant reserved an exception to the court’s ruling in allowing the state, on rebuttal, to show by its witness Boles that three or four days before the still was “raided” he saw this defendant, together with Oscar Knight (another defendant charged with this same offense), passing through a field where he was working, going in the direction of the still. We will not predicate reversible error on this .ruling. The exception is. without merit; even if the evidence appeared inadmissible, as insisted, we do not' regard it as being of sufficient import to divert the minds of the jury adversely to appellant. The indictment, as stated, in addition to charging the offense of distilling, etc., also charged the unlawful possession of a still, and that character of offense is continuous in its nature; therefore the fact, if it be a fact, that the accused was seen going across a field in the direction where the still was located was relevant as a circumstance to be considered by the jury. Moreover, the defendant denied all knowledge of the still and stated specifically, “that he never went through the field in his life to the still.”

The record proper is without error. Judgment of conviction, from, which this appeal was taken, will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The jury returned a general verdict finding the defendant guilty under an indictment which charged, in proper form and substance, the offenses of unlawfully having a still in possession and distilling prohibited liquors.

The conflicting evidence made a jury question. No special charges were requested, nor was the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to convict otherwise raised so far as this record discloses.

But one point of decision is presented. The defendant reserved an exception to the court’s ruling in allowing the state, on rebuttal, to show by its witness Boles that three or four days before the still was “raided” he saw this defendant, together with Oscar Knight (another defendant charged with this same offense), passing through a field where he was working, going in the direction of the still. We will not predicate reversible error on this .ruling. The exception is. without merit; even if the evidence appeared inadmissible, as insisted, we do not' regard it as being of sufficient import to divert the minds of the jury adversely to appellant. The indictment, as stated, in addition to charging the offense of distilling, etc., also charged the unlawful possession of a still, and that character of offense is continuous in its nature; therefore the fact, if it be a fact, that the accused was seen going across a field in the direction where the still was located was relevant as a circumstance to be considered by the jury. Moreover, the defendant denied all knowledge of the still and stated specifically, “that he never went through the field in his life to the still.”

The record proper is without error. Judgment of conviction, from, which this appeal was taken, will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 249, 22 Ala. App. 500, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack