Pritchett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pritchett v. State

115 So. 695, 22 Ala. App. 335, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 38

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

Docket3 Div. 576.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 695 (Pritchett 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

Pritchett v. State, 115 So. 695, 22 Ala. App. 335, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 38 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession of Xjrohibited liquors. The state proved, after prox>er predicate laid, what appellant’s counsel call a “half-hammered confession.” The appellant, on the trial, did not deny the confession, but explained it, so that, we apprehend, his counsel now describe it as “half-hammered,” by saying that, at the time he made the statement impliedly admitting his ownership of the whisky, testified to by the officer, he was “joking.” Eor his satisfaction we will say that, immediately upon discovery of 2 quarts of Old Dominion rye whisky, 27 pints of corn liquor, and 15 half pints, in a room with one situated as he was, and in a room the jury was authorized to find was occupied by him as his own, is a poor time to “joke,” especially if'the “joke” is to the effect that he owned the liquor.' There was ample evidence to support the verdict returned.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession of Xjrohibited liquors. The state proved, after prox>er predicate laid, what appellant’s counsel call a “half-hammered confession.” The appellant, on the trial, did not deny the confession, but explained it, so that, we apprehend, his counsel now describe it as “half-hammered,” by saying that, at the time he made the statement impliedly admitting his ownership of the whisky, testified to by the officer, he was “joking.” Eor his satisfaction we will say that, immediately upon discovery of 2 quarts of Old Dominion rye whisky, 27 pints of corn liquor, and 15 half pints, in a room with one situated as he was, and in a room the jury was authorized to find was occupied by him as his own, is a poor time to “joke,” especially if'the “joke” is to the effect that he owned the liquor.' There was ample evidence to support the verdict returned.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 695, 22 Ala. App. 335, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchett-v-state-alactapp-1928.