Loman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Loman v. State

99 So. 769, 19 Ala. App. 611, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 307

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 12, 1922

Docket4 Div. 843.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 99 So. 769 (Loman 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

Loman v. State, 99 So. 769, 19 Ala. App. 611, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 307 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The trough and pipe, as being a part of a still alleged to have been found on defendant’s premises, were admissible in evidence as a part of the res gesteo of the crime charged in the indictment. Mitchell v. State, 94 Ala. 68, 10 South. 518; Ezell v. State, 103 Ala. 8, 15 South. 818. But where the articles comprising the still charged to have been possessed by defendant have been testified to, and no element of contention appears in the record that the ártieles were not a part of a still, and it being the duty of appellant to show injury in the court’s ruling, the court will not be reversed for refusal to grant defendant's motion to require certain parts of the still, then *612 in possession of the sheriff, to be produced in court.

[3] The fact that defendant pleaded guilty before the justice of the peace on preliminary hearing is admissible. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 South. 711.

[4] There was no error in the oral charge of the court as indicated by the excerpts excepted to. Where facts are fully proven, or as to which there is no doubt, the court may so state in its charge to the jury.

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.

[1,2] The trough and pipe, as being a part of a still alleged to have been found on defendant’s premises, were admissible in evidence as a part of the res gesteo of the crime charged in the indictment. Mitchell v. State, 94 Ala. 68, 10 South. 518; Ezell v. State, 103 Ala. 8, 15 South. 818. But where the articles comprising the still charged to have been possessed by defendant have been testified to, and no element of contention appears in the record that the ártieles were not a part of a still, and it being the duty of appellant to show injury in the court’s ruling, the court will not be reversed for refusal to grant defendant's motion to require certain parts of the still, then *612 in possession of the sheriff, to be produced in court.

[3] The fact that defendant pleaded guilty before the justice of the peace on preliminary hearing is admissible. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 South. 711.

[4] There was no error in the oral charge of the court as indicated by the excerpts excepted to. Where facts are fully proven, or as to which there is no doubt, the court may so state in its charge to the jury.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 769, 19 Ala. App. 611, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loman-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack