Thompson v. State

115 So. 72, 22 Ala. App. 299, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 9
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 10, 1928
Docket1 Div. 730.
StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 72 (Thompson 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
Thompson v. State, 115 So. 72, 22 Ala. App. 299, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 9 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

But two exceptions are reserved for review, and they relate to the oral charge of the court. A defendant may be an accessory to the possession of a still, just' as he may be an accessory to any other crime, and if one is in possession of a still, and is aided and abetted by another, both are equally guilty. The court’s charge was free from error, and, there being no error apparent on the trial, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The sentence is indefinite, and therefore the cause is remanded to the circuit court for proper sentence. Tuggle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 539, 98 So. 700.

Affirmed, and remanded for sentence.

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

Related

Tuggle v. State
98 So. 700 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 So. 72, 22 Ala. App. 299, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-alactapp-1928.