Wetzell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wetzell v. State

57 So. 509, 3 Ala. App. 172, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 414

DecidedJanuary 18, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 57 So. 509 (Wetzell 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

Wetzell v. State, 57 So. 509, 3 Ala. App. 172, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 414 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted for a violator of the prohibition law. The State introduced but one witness who testified to the time of the commission of the offense, and this witness testified that he did not remember the time when he bought the prohibited liquor, but .that “it was in the winter- and was before Christmas.” The evidence is not sufficient [173]*173to show that the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations before the finding of the indictment. The defendant asked the general affirmative charge, and insists here that its refusal by the court below is error, because the evidence fails to show that the transaction occurred within the limitation prescribed by the statute in which the offense is punishable.

The record fails to present evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the offense was committed within the period prescribed by statute making it punishable, and the case must be reversed.—Yancey v. State, 1 Ala. App. 226, 55 South. 267.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted for a violator of the prohibition law. The State introduced but one witness who testified to the time of the commission of the offense, and this witness testified that he did not remember the time when he bought the prohibited liquor, but .that “it was in the winter- and was before Christmas.” The evidence is not sufficient [173]*173to show that the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations before the finding of the indictment. The defendant asked the general affirmative charge, and insists here that its refusal by the court below is error, because the evidence fails to show that the transaction occurred within the limitation prescribed by the statute in which the offense is punishable.

The record fails to present evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the offense was committed within the period prescribed by statute making it punishable, and the case must be reversed.—Yancey v. State, 1 Ala. App. 226, 55 South. 267.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 509, 3 Ala. App. 172, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wetzell-v-state-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack