Pate v. State

162 So. 571, 26 Ala. App. 487, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 149
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 25, 1935·No. 7 Div. 111.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

It has many times been held by this court that a constructive possession alone is not sufficient to justify a conviction for the unlawful possession of whisky. There must be evidence from which the jury can infer a guilty scienter. Burroughs v. State, 24 Ala. App. 579, 139 So. 115.

When the evidence for the state was all in and the state had rested its case, the defendant made a motion to exclude the evidence and to discharge the defendant. Denial of defendant’s motion to exclude all evidence is never reversible error. McMullen v. Daniel, 229 Ala. 194, 155 So. 687.

However, there was not sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the possession of the whisky, and therefore defendant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted.

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

Pate v. State, 162 So. 571, 26 Ala. App. 487, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 149 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

162 So. 571 (Pate v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnold v. State
339 So. 2d 162 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Adkins v. State
93 So. 2d 519 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1956)
Brooks v. City of Birmingham
19 So. 2d 74 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Snodgrass v. State
198 So. 869 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)
Walls v. State
198 So. 151 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)