Pate v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pate v. State

162 So. 571, 26 Ala. App. 487, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 149

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 25, 1935

Docket7 Div. 111.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 So. 571 (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, 162 So. 571, 26 Ala. App. 487, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 149 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

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