Nugent v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Nugent v. State

101 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 689

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 1924

Docket8 Div. 128.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 So. 924 (Nugent 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

Nugent v. State, 101 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 689 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The conviction of this appellant in the court below rested upon the testimony of the two state’s witnesses, Clyde Davis and W. A. Rominé, whose evidence tended to show that on an island in the Tennessee river they located a still, minus a cap and worm, and that they arrested this defendant while in a boat some several hundred yards away from the still place, and at the time of his arrest he was in the possession of a still cap. Under the rule of evidence established in section 2 of an act, .approved September 30, 1919- (Acts 1919, p. 1086), as construed in the case of Newt. Wilson v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 914, 1 the court erred in refusing to give at the request of defendant in writing the general affirmative charge. Under all the evidence in this case the state failed to meet the required burden of proof, and the defendant was entitled to his discharge. Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 62.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The conviction of this appellant in the court below rested upon the testimony of the two state’s witnesses, Clyde Davis and W. A. Rominé, whose evidence tended to show that on an island in the Tennessee river they located a still, minus a cap and worm, and that they arrested this defendant while in a boat some several hundred yards away from the still place, and at the time of his arrest he was in the possession of a still cap. Under the rule of evidence established in section 2 of an act, .approved September 30, 1919- (Acts 1919, p. 1086), as construed in the case of Newt. Wilson v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 914, 1 the court erred in refusing to give at the request of defendant in writing the general affirmative charge. Under all the evidence in this case the state failed to meet the required burden of proof, and the defendant was entitled to his discharge. Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 62.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nugent-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack