Home/Alabama Court of Appeals/Riley v. State

Riley v. State

139 So. 576, 24 Ala. App. 594, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 22
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 2, 1932
Docket8 Div. 489.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 139 So. 576 (Riley 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
Riley v. State, 139 So. 576, 24 Ala. App. 594, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 22 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully possessing two jugs of whisky, and he appeals.

The evidence for the state has been read and considered. We find no sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the possession of the whisky charged in the indictment. It is' manifest that this conviction was predicated upon suspicion, conjecture, or surmise. As has been many times held, this is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for crime. Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Shepard’s Ann., Vol. XVI, No. 2, p. 115, Subdiv. 283.

The motion for new trial should have been granted, and for the error in refusing this motion the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Other questions need not be decided.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Lyons v. State
21 So. 2d 339 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1945)
Flandell v. State
19 So. 2d 50 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Gilbert v. State
3 So. 2d 95 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1941)
Hunt v. State
193 So. 875 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)
Campbell v. State
191 So. 810 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1939)
Duncan v. State
143 So. 201 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 So. 576, 24 Ala. App. 594, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-state-alactapp-1932.