Veal v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Veal v. State

95 So. 783, 19 Ala. App. 168, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 60

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 1923

Docket4 Div. 792.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 95 So. 783 (Veal 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

Veal v. State, 95 So. 783, 19 Ala. App. 168, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 60 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

The indictment was against the defendant and another. On 'the trial the other defehdant was acquitted, and this defendant alone prosecutes this appeal.

There were numerous objections and exceptions to the introduction of evidence, but it will not be necessary to pass upon each exception specifically, other than herein appears.

We have several times held that a witness who knows can state as a collective fact that a certain apparatus found is “a complete still outfit”; his knowledge of whether it is or not being subject to test by cross-examination.

*169 A witness will not be permitted to testify that a still bad been recently used, that being a conclusion. Tbe witness should state tbe facts describing tbé condition of tbe apparatus, leaving to tbe Jury tbe conclusion to be drawn from tbe facts testified to. In tbis case tbe witness had already testified to the facts from which a recent use of tbe still might be inferred by tbe jury, and' tbe conclusion was for tbe jury, and not tbe witness.

Witnesses who are shown to have a knowledge of such things may testify as to tbe “kind of beer being used and as to bow and from what whisky or rum is made.”

Tbe state was permitted, over tbe timely objection and exception of defendant, to prove tbe finding of other stills in tbe same swamp in which was the still for which tbe ‘ defendant was being-prosecuted. Tbe defendant was in no way connected with these other stills. Tbe possession or operation of these other stills were distinct offenses, and it is a well-settled rule that upon the trial of an indictment charging one offense evidence of another and distinct offense, though of the same nature, is not admissible. Childers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 396, 92 South. 512.

There was ample evidence to justify the refusal of the general charge as requested by the defendant, but for the errors pointed out the judgment must be reversed, and the cause is remanded. ,

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMEORD, J.

The indictment was against the defendant and another. On 'the trial the other defehdant was acquitted, and this defendant alone prosecutes this appeal.

There were numerous objections and exceptions to the introduction of evidence, but it will not be necessary to pass upon each exception specifically, other than herein appears.

We have several times held that a witness who knows can state as a collective fact that a certain apparatus found is “a complete still outfit”; his knowledge of whether it is or not being subject to test by cross-examination.

*169 A witness will not be permitted to testify that a still bad been recently used, that being a conclusion. Tbe witness should state tbe facts describing tbé condition of tbe apparatus, leaving to tbe Jury tbe conclusion to be drawn from tbe facts testified to. In tbis case tbe witness had already testified to the facts from which a recent use of tbe still might be inferred by tbe jury, and' tbe conclusion was for tbe jury, and not tbe witness.

Witnesses who are shown to have a knowledge of such things may testify as to tbe “kind of beer being used and as to bow and from what whisky or rum is made.”

Tbe state was permitted, over tbe timely objection and exception of defendant, to prove tbe finding of other stills in tbe same swamp in which was the still for which tbe ‘ defendant was being-prosecuted. Tbe defendant was in no way connected with these other stills. Tbe possession or operation of these other stills were distinct offenses, and it is a well-settled rule that upon the trial of an indictment charging one offense evidence of another and distinct offense, though of the same nature, is not admissible. Childers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 396, 92 South. 512.

There was ample evidence to justify the refusal of the general charge as requested by the defendant, but for the errors pointed out the judgment must be reversed, and the cause is remanded. ,

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 783, 19 Ala. App. 168, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veal-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack