Lindsey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lindsey v. State

97 So. 243, 19 Ala. App. 357, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 200

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 14, 1923

Docket6 Div. 239.

StatusPublished

This text of 97 So. 243 (Lindsey 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

Lindsey v. State, 97 So. 243, 19 Ala. App. 357, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 200 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The defendant, appellant, was indicted jointly with his two sons for manufacturing prohibited liquors and for having in his possession a still. The 'trial judge gave the affirmative charge for the state as to Sam Lindsey and the affirmative charge ,for the defendant as to the other defendants.

The evidence was circumstantial. The still was found a short distance from appellant’s house, where he and his two sons, jointly indicted with him, lived, but the evidence fails to show that it was on his land or on land under his control. Evidence as to the road leading from .defendant’s house to the still and other circumstances against the defendant may be regarded as very strong, but the inferences to be drawn from ■ the evidence when it is susceptible to more • than one rational conclusion present questions for the jury. JThe trial court in a criminal case may announce presumptions of law to the jury, but it may not make 'out the guilt of the defendant by drawing an inference of fact; it is tbe exclusive province of tbe jury to draw such inference. Pearce v. State, 4 Ala. App. 32, 58 South. 996; 4 Michie’s Ala. Dig. p. 330, par. 499.

The trial judge erred in giving the affirmative charge for the state, and for this error the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

Reversed aad remanded.

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

FOSTER, J.

The defendant, appellant, was indicted jointly with his two sons for manufacturing prohibited liquors and for having in his possession a still. The 'trial judge gave the affirmative charge for the state as to Sam Lindsey and the affirmative charge ,for the defendant as to the other defendants.

The evidence was circumstantial. The still was found a short distance from appellant’s house, where he and his two sons, jointly indicted with him, lived, but the evidence fails to show that it was on his land or on land under his control. Evidence as to the road leading from .defendant’s house to the still and other circumstances against the defendant may be regarded as very strong, but the inferences to be drawn from ■ the evidence when it is susceptible to more • than one rational conclusion present questions for the jury. JThe trial court in a criminal case may announce presumptions of law to the jury, but it may not make 'out the guilt of the defendant by drawing an inference of fact; it is tbe exclusive province of tbe jury to draw such inference. Pearce v. State, 4 Ala. App. 32, 58 South. 996; 4 Michie’s Ala. Dig. p. 330, par. 499.

The trial judge erred in giving the affirmative charge for the state, and for this error the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

Reversed aad remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 243, 19 Ala. App. 357, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack