Robinson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Robinson v. State

115 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 688

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 1928

Docket3 Div. 570.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 925 (Robinson 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack