Newby v. State

108 So. 272, 21 Ala. App. 353, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 127
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 13, 1926
Docket8 Div. 320.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 So. 272 (Newby 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
Newby v. State, 108 So. 272, 21 Ala. App. 353, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 127 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

*354 SAMFORD, J.

There does not appear in this record a brief statement of the cause of complaint signed by the solicitor or a waiver thereof by the defendant such as is required by section 3843 of the Code 1923. For this reason the judgment in this case must be reversed. Owens v. State, 99 So. 155, 19 Ala. App. 573.

Section 4062 of the Code of 1923 makes it unlawful and fixes a penalty for any person to take, catch, or kill any fish in any of the waters of this state by means of any seine, trammel net, gill net, fish trap, or by any other means other than by ordinary hook and line, gig, spear, or trot-line. Section 4063, Code 1923, makes certain exceptions. The rule is that, when the exception is set out in a separate clause or section from that creating and defining the offense, it is not necessary to negative the exception by averment. Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552; Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235; Grattan v. State, 71 Ala. 344; Hyde v. State, 46 So. 489, 155 Ala. 133; McLeod v. State, 62 So. 991, 8 Ala. App. 329.

The exceptions provided for in section 4063 place a limitation on the preceding section, and, before a conviction can be had under section 4062, the burden is upon the state to show by the evidence that in catching fish the defendant was not within the exception, but was in fact violating a law of the state.

The facts necessary to prove the corpus delicti as well as the guilt of defendant may be by circumstantial evidence, which in this case was sufficient to sustain the court in his finding, but, for the error in the record, 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

Related

Robinson v. State
180 So. 2d 282 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1965)
Shiflett v. State
67 So. 2d 284 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1953)
Dorgan v. State
196 So. 160 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 So. 272, 21 Ala. App. 353, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newby-v-state-alactapp-1926.