McBay v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McBay v. State

109 So. 757, 21 Ala. App. 471, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 226

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 1926

Docket8 Div. 352.

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 757 (McBay 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

McBay v. State, 109 So. 757, 21 Ala. App. 471, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 226 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt. The general charge' as requested by defendant was properly refused.

Refused charges 6 and 7 were not applicable in this case. The evidence here is not circumstantial. Tatum v. State, 20 Ala. App. 24, 100 So. 569.

The witness Hampton was permitted to testify over the objection and exception of defendant that he saw defendant in a distillery. It is now insisted that this was a conclusion, and its admission was error. The statement was of a collective fact, and not a conclusion of the witness. Moreover, subsequently this witness qualified as to his knowledge of what constituted a distillery, and described the outfit to the jury. Besides, even if error, such' ruling would not be sufficient upon which to base a reversal in this case.

Dock Gray testified to the general good character of defendant, and was asked on cross-examination by the state: “You have heard that he made liquor, Haven’t you?” This was permissible to test the estimate as to good character entertained by the witness. Finderson v. State, ante, p. 109, 105 So. 399.

The comments of the solicitor on the evidence are borne out by the record.

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.

There was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt. The general charge' as requested by defendant was properly refused.

Refused charges 6 and 7 were not applicable in this case. The evidence here is not circumstantial. Tatum v. State, 20 Ala. App. 24, 100 So. 569.

The witness Hampton was permitted to testify over the objection and exception of defendant that he saw defendant in a distillery. It is now insisted that this was a conclusion, and its admission was error. The statement was of a collective fact, and not a conclusion of the witness. Moreover, subsequently this witness qualified as to his knowledge of what constituted a distillery, and described the outfit to the jury. Besides, even if error, such' ruling would not be sufficient upon which to base a reversal in this case.

Dock Gray testified to the general good character of defendant, and was asked on cross-examination by the state: “You have heard that he made liquor, Haven’t you?” This was permissible to test the estimate as to good character entertained by the witness. Finderson v. State, ante, p. 109, 105 So. 399.

The comments of the solicitor on the evidence are borne out by the record.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 757, 21 Ala. App. 471, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbay-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack