Mimms v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mimms v. State

114 So. 425, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 156

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 1927

Docket2 Div. 392.

StatusPublished

This text of 114 So. 425 (Mimms 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

Mimms v. State, 114 So. 425, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 156 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The court in his general charge instructed the jury:

“If the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the parts of the still1 or certain parts as testified to by the witnesses, and that they are parts of a still, and they are not satisfactorily explained, then you should find the defendant guilty.”

The defendant excepted to this part of the court’s charge. The “parts” testified to by *255 the witnesses were a smoked tin lard can in defendant’s yard, a tin top with a hole in it in defendant’s kitchen, and a trough with a hole in each end just outside of defendant’s yard. It is admitted that none of these, nor all of them together, constituted a complete still'suitable to be used to manufacture whisky. The defendant was not on trial for possessing parts of a still; neither could he he so tried. The statute is against the possession of a complete still. The charge of the court was error, for which the judgment must be reversed. Gamble v. State, 19 Ala. App. 82, 95 So. 202; Maisel v. State, 17 Ala. App. 12, 81 So. 348; Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331; Pate v. State, 19 Ala. App. 642, 99 So. 833; Scott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 360, 102 So. 152.

It is not necessary to pass upon the other questions raised by the exceptions. Let the judgment be reversed and the cause be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The court in his general charge instructed the jury:

“If the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the parts of the still1 or certain parts as testified to by the witnesses, and that they are parts of a still, and they are not satisfactorily explained, then you should find the defendant guilty.”

The defendant excepted to this part of the court’s charge. The “parts” testified to by *255 the witnesses were a smoked tin lard can in defendant’s yard, a tin top with a hole in it in defendant’s kitchen, and a trough with a hole in each end just outside of defendant’s yard. It is admitted that none of these, nor all of them together, constituted a complete still'suitable to be used to manufacture whisky. The defendant was not on trial for possessing parts of a still; neither could he he so tried. The statute is against the possession of a complete still. The charge of the court was error, for which the judgment must be reversed. Gamble v. State, 19 Ala. App. 82, 95 So. 202; Maisel v. State, 17 Ala. App. 12, 81 So. 348; Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331; Pate v. State, 19 Ala. App. 642, 99 So. 833; Scott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 360, 102 So. 152.

It is not necessary to pass upon the other questions raised by the exceptions. Let the judgment be reversed and the cause be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 425, 22 Ala. App. 254, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mimms-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack