Stinson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Stinson v. State

148 So. 753, 25 Ala. App. 459, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 114

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1933

Docket4 Div. 959.

StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 753 (Stinson 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

Stinson v. State, 148 So. 753, 25 Ala. App. 459, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 114 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment was in one count and charged the unlawful possession of a still, etc., suitable to be used in the manufacture of whisky. During the examination of Lightner, a witness for the state, he was allowed to testify over the objection of the defendant that the mash or beer found at the still contained alcohol, without such witness having been qualified as to his knowledge in such matters. While this was a technical error on the part of the court, the ruling • could not have injuriously affected defendant’s rights for the reason that the prosecution was not for manufacturing whisky, but for the possession of a whisky still, the existence and location of which was proven without dispute.

It was also proven without dispute that some one was in possession of the still, present, and exercising dominion over it, so that whether the mash found at the still place contained alcohol or not was no moment; moreover, the defense was an alibi and the ruling of the court in no way affected this defense.

We find no prejudicial error and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment was in one count and charged the unlawful possession of a still, etc., suitable to be used in the manufacture of whisky. During the examination of Lightner, a witness for the state, he was allowed to testify over the objection of the defendant that the mash or beer found at the still contained alcohol, without such witness having been qualified as to his knowledge in such matters. While this was a technical error on the part of the court, the ruling • could not have injuriously affected defendant’s rights for the reason that the prosecution was not for manufacturing whisky, but for the possession of a whisky still, the existence and location of which was proven without dispute.

It was also proven without dispute that some one was in possession of the still, present, and exercising dominion over it, so that whether the mash found at the still place contained alcohol or not was no moment; moreover, the defense was an alibi and the ruling of the court in no way affected this defense.

We find no prejudicial error and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 753, 25 Ala. App. 459, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stinson-v-state-alactapp-1933.