Pate v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pate v. State

105 So. 925, 21 Ala. App. 688

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1925

Docket7 Div. 135.

StatusPublished

This text of 105 So. 925 (Pate 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

Pate v. State, 105 So. 925, 21 Ala. App. 688 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RIGE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence. The defendant requested the general affirmative charge, which was refused, as to the first count of the indictment. This count charged that he did distill liquors, etc., a part of which was alcohol. We have carefully examined the record, and nowhere is there any evidence that whisky was in fact manufactured. No whisky was found. The still was not connected up. In fact, nothing was shown by the evidence from which the jury would be authorized to legally find that whisky had been made.The requested charge as to count 1 should have been given, and for the error in its refusal the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Gardner v. State (Ala. App.) 102 So. 914; 1 Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595. Reversed' and remanded.

1

20 Ala. App. 469.

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

RIGE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence. The defendant requested the general affirmative charge, which was refused, as to the first count of the indictment. This count charged that he did distill liquors, etc., a part of which was alcohol. We have carefully examined the record, and nowhere is there any evidence that whisky was in fact manufactured. No whisky was found. The still was not connected up. In fact, nothing was shown by the evidence from which the jury would be authorized to legally find that whisky had been made.The requested charge as to count 1 should have been given, and for the error in its refusal the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Gardner v. State (Ala. App.) 102 So. 914; 1 Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595. Reversed' and remanded.

1

20 Ala. App. 469.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 925, 21 Ala. App. 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pate-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack