Norred v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Norred v. State

82 So. 559, 17 Ala. App. 111, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 131

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1919

Docket7 Div. 601.

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 559 (Norred 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

Norred v. State, 82 So. 559, 17 Ala. App. 111, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 131 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

[1,2] The prosecution was begun by affidavit in the county court, charging the defendant with manufacturing spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, and a warrant issued returnable to the County court, where he was tried and convicted, and from that conviction he appealed to the circuit court. On the trial in the circuit court, the solicitor filed a complaint as required by the statute, charging the same offense, and hence there is no merit in the contention made by appellant that the dharge in the circuit court was a different charge to that upon which he was tried in the county court. The court did not err in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded to the witness-as follows: “Reeves told you that the defendant did not have anything to do with the. still, didn’t he?” The answer to this might or might not have been rendered legal, *112 but tbe defendant did not state wbat he expected the witness to answer.

The tendencies of the evidence were sufficient upon which the jury was justified in predicating a verdict, and therefore~the affirmative charge was properly refused.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the sentence for .costs was indefinite, and for that reason must be remanded for a proper sentence.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; cause remanded, for proper sentence.

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

SAMEORD, J.

[1,2] The prosecution was begun by affidavit in the county court, charging the defendant with manufacturing spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, and a warrant issued returnable to the County court, where he was tried and convicted, and from that conviction he appealed to the circuit court. On the trial in the circuit court, the solicitor filed a complaint as required by the statute, charging the same offense, and hence there is no merit in the contention made by appellant that the dharge in the circuit court was a different charge to that upon which he was tried in the county court. The court did not err in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded to the witness-as follows: “Reeves told you that the defendant did not have anything to do with the. still, didn’t he?” The answer to this might or might not have been rendered legal, *112 but tbe defendant did not state wbat he expected the witness to answer.

The tendencies of the evidence were sufficient upon which the jury was justified in predicating a verdict, and therefore~the affirmative charge was properly refused.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the sentence for .costs was indefinite, and for that reason must be remanded for a proper sentence.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; cause remanded, for proper sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 559, 17 Ala. App. 111, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norred-v-state-alactapp-1919.