Murphy v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Murphy v. State

104 So. 686, 20 Ala. App. 624, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 130

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 26, 1925

Docket8 Div. 250.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 So. 686 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. State, 104 So. 686, 20 Ala. App. 624, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 130 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The state witnesses found a still in the woods on land belonging to a Mrs. South. They lay in wait from daylight until about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when defendant and another came through the woods, looked at the beer, and went on through the woods a piece from the still and sat down near a tree; they then got up and began throwing something. This took about 15 minutes. Both parties were then arrested charged with possessing a still. It was testified that a pair of overalls with a torn leg was found at the still, and another witness testified that about two weeks previous he had s^en defendant wearing a pair of overalls with á torn leg, but as to which leg he could not say. This is not sufficient evidence *625 upon which to base a conviction. Ex parte Davis ex rel., etc., 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Hobdy v. State, 20 Ala. App. 44, 100 So. 571; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563.

The court erred in refusing to give the general charge for defendant as requested, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The state witnesses found a still in the woods on land belonging to a Mrs. South. They lay in wait from daylight until about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when defendant and another came through the woods, looked at the beer, and went on through the woods a piece from the still and sat down near a tree; they then got up and began throwing something. This took about 15 minutes. Both parties were then arrested charged with possessing a still. It was testified that a pair of overalls with a torn leg was found at the still, and another witness testified that about two weeks previous he had s^en defendant wearing a pair of overalls with á torn leg, but as to which leg he could not say. This is not sufficient evidence *625 upon which to base a conviction. Ex parte Davis ex rel., etc., 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Hobdy v. State, 20 Ala. App. 44, 100 So. 571; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563.

The court erred in refusing to give the general charge for defendant as requested, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 686, 20 Ala. App. 624, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack