Ray v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Ray v. State

168 So. 617, 175 Miss. 623, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 89

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 1936

DocketNo. 32274.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 So. 617 (Ray v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ray v. State, 168 So. 617, 175 Miss. 623, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 89 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

McGowen, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The indictment here was brought under section 1993, Code 1930, and charged that appellant “did then and there, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously *625 own, have in his. possession and under his control an integral part of a distillery commonly called a still,” etc.

There was no evidence of ownership of the still. It was being watched by the officers, witnesses for the state, and while they were shifting their position, when they again sighted the still, they saw appellant standing thereby with one hand on it. The still was not on appellant’s land or close thereto. Appellant saw the officers, ran, and evaded arrest for some days. This evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction for owning or having in possession a still or an integral part thereof.

The appellant moved to exclude the evidence when the state rested its case, which motion was, by the court, overruled, and thereupon appellant and other witnesses testified, in his behalf, to an alibi as a defense. At the close of the case, he did not request a peremptory instruction, and,, therefore, the case must be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

McGowen, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The indictment here was brought under section 1993, Code 1930, and charged that appellant “did then and there, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously *625 own, have in his. possession and under his control an integral part of a distillery commonly called a still,” etc.

There was no evidence of ownership of the still. It was being watched by the officers, witnesses for the state, and while they were shifting their position, when they again sighted the still, they saw appellant standing thereby with one hand on it. The still was not on appellant’s land or close thereto. Appellant saw the officers, ran, and evaded arrest for some days. This evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction for owning or having in possession a still or an integral part thereof.

The appellant moved to exclude the evidence when the state rested its case, which motion was, by the court, overruled, and thereupon appellant and other witnesses testified, in his behalf, to an alibi as a defense. At the close of the case, he did not request a peremptory instruction, and,, therefore, the case must be remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 617, 175 Miss. 623, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-miss-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack