Tyler v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Tyler v. State

153 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 42

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 1934

Docket4 Div. 36.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 So. 894 (Tyler 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

Tyler v. State, 153 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 42 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction for violating the state pro *105 hibition law by having prohibited liquor or beverages in her possession. The case rested upon circumstantial evidence, coupled with an alleged confession as to (her -possession of the contraband liquor. (Testimony of state witness Crittendon). This confession was elicited without any semblance of attempt to show that it was voluntary, and was allowed by the court over the strenuous objection and exception of the defendant. That the objection was general cannot avail the state. Poarch v. State, 19 Ala. App. 161, 95 So. 781; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 Am. St. Rep. 682. A general objection to testimony as to confessions of defendant is sufficient for its exclusion in the absence of a proper predicate. Poarch’s Case, supra, and cases cited. Other questions upon this appeal need not be considered.

Reversed and remanded

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction for violating the state pro *105 hibition law by having prohibited liquor or beverages in her possession. The case rested upon circumstantial evidence, coupled with an alleged confession as to (her -possession of the contraband liquor. (Testimony of state witness Crittendon). This confession was elicited without any semblance of attempt to show that it was voluntary, and was allowed by the court over the strenuous objection and exception of the defendant. That the objection was general cannot avail the state. Poarch v. State, 19 Ala. App. 161, 95 So. 781; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 Am. St. Rep. 682. A general objection to testimony as to confessions of defendant is sufficient for its exclusion in the absence of a proper predicate. Poarch’s Case, supra, and cases cited. Other questions upon this appeal need not be considered.

Reversed and remanded

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 104, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-state-alactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack