Pearce v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Pearce v. State

40 Ala. 720

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 40 Ala. 720 (Pearce v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pearce v. State, 40 Ala. 720 (Ala. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGE, J.

The State relied for a conviction upon the sale to Maynard; and after proving this sale, the court permitted evidence to be introduced- of other sales, to another person, at other and different times, “not to convict for them, but to show knowledge by defendant that the liquor sold to Maynard was drunk about the premises, and to illustrate the character of the sale to Maynard.” Under the particular circumstances of this case, this evidence was admissible for the purpose stated.

2. We have carefully examined the charge which the court gave to the jury, and the two charges requested by the defendant, which the court refused to give; and, on the authority of the previous adjudications of this court upon the question, we hold, that the court committed no error in its rulings in relation to them. — Brown v. The State, 31 Ala. [725]*725353; Easterling v. The State, 30 Ala. 48; Patterson v. The State, 36 Ala. 298.

There being no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.

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

JUDGE, J.

The State relied for a conviction upon the sale to Maynard; and after proving this sale, the court permitted evidence to be introduced- of other sales, to another person, at other and different times, “not to convict for them, but to show knowledge by defendant that the liquor sold to Maynard was drunk about the premises, and to illustrate the character of the sale to Maynard.” Under the particular circumstances of this case, this evidence was admissible for the purpose stated.

2. We have carefully examined the charge which the court gave to the jury, and the two charges requested by the defendant, which the court refused to give; and, on the authority of the previous adjudications of this court upon the question, we hold, that the court committed no error in its rulings in relation to them. — Brown v. The State, 31 Ala. [725]*725353; Easterling v. The State, 30 Ala. 48; Patterson v. The State, 36 Ala. 298.

There being no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Ala. 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearce-v-state-ala-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack