Parcus v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Parcus v. State

104 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 690

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1925

Docket8 Div. 174.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 923 (Parcus 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

Parcus v. State, 104 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 690 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals. The evidence, in its strongest aspects for the state, was: A still was found in operation; some men were working at or around it; that defendant was seen about 30 yards away from the still, standing up, doing nothing; that, when witness was observed by defendant, he (defendant) picked up his coat, lying near the still, and ran. There was a dense fog covering the territory. Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he was not there; that he was at home, one mile or more away; that he knew nothing of the still, and had nothing to do with it. The evidence creates a suspicion that; defendant is guilty; but that is all. We have carefully read it, and cannot find therein basis for holding that the presumption of innocence, which the law raises for the protection of defendants on trial for crime, has been overcome. The trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563. Reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals. The evidence, in its strongest aspects for the state, was: A still was found in operation; some men were working at or around it; that defendant was seen about 30 yards away from the still, standing up, doing nothing; that, when witness was observed by defendant, he (defendant) picked up his coat, lying near the still, and ran. There was a dense fog covering the territory. Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he was not there; that he was at home, one mile or more away; that he knew nothing of the still, and had nothing to do with it. The evidence creates a suspicion that; defendant is guilty; but that is all. We have carefully read it, and cannot find therein basis for holding that the presumption of innocence, which the law raises for the protection of defendants on trial for crime, has been overcome. The trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parcus-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack