Riley v. State

139 So. 576, 24 Ala. App. 594, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 22
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 2, 1932·No. 8 Div. 489.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

139 So. 576 (Riley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)