Pressnall v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pressnall v. State

75 So. 278, 16 Ala. App. 72, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 133

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1917

Docket1 Div. 243.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 So. 278 (Pressnall 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

Pressnall v. State, 75 So. 278, 16 Ala. App. 72, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 133 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and from a judgment of conviction he appeals.

There are but two questions of law presented by the record for review:

1. The court, over the objection of the defendant, allowed the witness Waite, who testified for the state, to state that when he first met the defendant on the evening the whisky was obtained, the defendant was half drunk. This was error; but was rendered, error without injury by the defendant himself, who, in his direct testimony, said he was full drunk. Kelsoe v. State, 15 Ala. App. 461, 73 South. 831.

2. The defendant, when the state Closed its ease, moved to exclude all the testimony, which motion the court overruled. This was not error. There was enough evidence to go ta the jury upon which to base a verdict..

There is no error in the record, and the case is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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