Robinson v. State

115 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 688
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Ala. App. 169
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 17, 1928·No. 3 Div. 570.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted, generally, under an indictment charging in separate counts the distillation of prohibited liquors, and unlawfully being in possession of a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of distilling prohibited liquors. The court has read the entire evidence, sitting en banc, and, while there are two or three questions raised on the taking of testimony that might otherwise merit attention at our hands, yet, under the view we take, a consideration of them is unnecessary. It is our conclusion that, under the well-known rule laid down in die case of Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738, the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury. The evidence might, in some minds, create a suspicion of appellant’s guilt; but it is insufficient to support a conviction. Reversed and remanded.

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

Robinson v. State, 115 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 688 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

115 So. 925 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cobb v. Malone
92 Ala. 630 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)