Mitchell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mitchell v. State

96 So. 653, 19 Ala. App. 248, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 119

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 1923

Docket7 Div. 851.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 So. 653 (Mitchell 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

Mitchell v. State, 96 So. 653, 19 Ala. App. 248, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 119 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

Tbe defendant, appellant, was charged in the first count of the indictment with distilling and in the second count with having in his possession a still. to be used for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

There was evidence for the state that the alleged offense was committed in Talladega county, and evidence for the defendant that it was in Clay county. When there is no proof of venue, it is, when properly presented, a question for the court to pass upon; hut when, as in the instant case, it is a question of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the venue, it becomes a question for tbe jury, and this court will not interfere,. unless the ruling of the trial court was invoked on the sufficiency of the evidencie, and this ruling made the ground of attack. Pearson v. State, *249 5 Ala. App. 73, 59 South. 526; Hubbard v. State, 72 Ala. 164; Ragsdale v. State, 134 Ala. 24, 32 South. 674.

The witness Campbell was properly qualified, and the trial court did not err in permitting him to testify that meal and water were used for malting liquor. Veal v. State, ante, p. 168, 95 South. 783.

Counsel for appellant insists that the trial court ex mero motu should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant on the second count. A trial court will not be put in error for failing to give the affirmative charge for the defendant where the sanie was not requested in writing. Section 5364, Code 1907, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 815. Furthermore, there was ámple evidence to justify a conviction under the second count.

Requested charges 1, 2, and 3 related to the alcoholic content of the liquor, and referred to in the first count, which charged distilling, etc. A conviction under the second count was an acquittal of the charge of distilling. No error can be predicated upon the refusal of the charges not applicable to the second count.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

FOSTER, J.

Tbe defendant, appellant, was charged in the first count of the indictment with distilling and in the second count with having in his possession a still. to be used for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

There was evidence for the state that the alleged offense was committed in Talladega county, and evidence for the defendant that it was in Clay county. When there is no proof of venue, it is, when properly presented, a question for the court to pass upon; hut when, as in the instant case, it is a question of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the venue, it becomes a question for tbe jury, and this court will not interfere,. unless the ruling of the trial court was invoked on the sufficiency of the evidencie, and this ruling made the ground of attack. Pearson v. State, *249 5 Ala. App. 73, 59 South. 526; Hubbard v. State, 72 Ala. 164; Ragsdale v. State, 134 Ala. 24, 32 South. 674.

The witness Campbell was properly qualified, and the trial court did not err in permitting him to testify that meal and water were used for malting liquor. Veal v. State, ante, p. 168, 95 South. 783.

Counsel for appellant insists that the trial court ex mero motu should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant on the second count. A trial court will not be put in error for failing to give the affirmative charge for the defendant where the sanie was not requested in writing. Section 5364, Code 1907, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 815. Furthermore, there was ámple evidence to justify a conviction under the second count.

Requested charges 1, 2, and 3 related to the alcoholic content of the liquor, and referred to in the first count, which charged distilling, etc. A conviction under the second count was an acquittal of the charge of distilling. No error can be predicated upon the refusal of the charges not applicable to the second count.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 653, 19 Ala. App. 248, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack