Miller v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Miller v. State

95 So. 915, 19 Ala. App. 137, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 47

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 1923

Docket7 Div. 840.

StatusPublished

This text of 95 So. 915 (Miller 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

Miller v. State, 95 So. 915, 19 Ala. App. 137, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 47 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

We have several times held the indictment to be sufficient. Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 South. 61.

*138 The state’s witness, over the objection of defendant, was permitted to testify that /the apparatus captured was a device on which whisky could have been made. In Griggs v. State, 18 Ala. App. 467, 93 South. 499, the writer and the presiding judge of this court held in line with appellant’s contention, but the Supreme Court, in Ex parte State ex rel. Davis, etc., 207 Ala. 453, 93 South. 501, took a different view. Under the law, we follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Charge 2 is nothing more or less than an instruction to the jury that they must believe from the evidence, beyond d. reasonable doubt, that defendant was in the possession of the still before he could be convicted. This had already- been charged by the court.

We find no errpr 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