Thompson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

115 So. 72, 22 Ala. App. 299, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 9

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thompson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Ala. App. 498 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 1928·No. 1 Div. 730.·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

115 So. 72 (Thompson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related