Riley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Riley v. State

187 So. 247, 28 Ala. App. 389, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 17

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided November 22, 1938·No. 4 Div. 403.·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

It has many times been held‘by this court that the presumption of innocence is an evidentiary fact, and attends a defendant throughout his trial and until his guilt has been' established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It has also been declared in many cases that .mere suspicion, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence. Facts and circumstances that only give rise to suspicion of gui]t will not justify a verdict of conviction. Spelce v. State, 17 Ala.App. 401, 85 So. 835; Sturdivant v. State, 25 Ala.App. 200, 143 So. 201.

The defendant in this case' "is charged with the unlawful, possession of one pint of rum found by the1 officers across the road from the place where the defendant was arrested and searched. We have examined the evidence in this case, and we find that there is not sufficient testimony connecting this defendant with the possession of the bottle of rum.

The motion for a new trial should have been granted. For the error of the .qourt in refusing to grant this motion for a new-trial, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

It has many times been held‘by this court that the presumption of innocence is an evidentiary fact, and attends a defendant throughout his trial and until his guilt has been' established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It has also been declared in many cases that .mere suspicion, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence. Facts and circumstances that only give rise to suspicion of gui]t will not justify a verdict of conviction. Spelce v. State, 17 Ala.App. 401, 85 So. 835; Sturdivant v. State, 25 Ala.App. 200, 143 So. 201.

The defendant in this case' "is charged with the unlawful, possession of one pint of rum found by the1 officers across the road from the place where the defendant was arrested and searched. We have examined the evidence in this case, and we find that there is not sufficient testimony connecting this defendant with the possession of the bottle of rum.

The motion for a new trial should have been granted. For the error of the .qourt in refusing to grant this motion for a new-trial, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Riley v. State, 187 So. 247, 28 Ala. App. 389, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 17 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

187 So. 247 (Riley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related