Whitehead v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Whitehead v. State

101 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 95, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 166

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 1924

Docket4 Div. 916.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 101 So. 70 (Whitehead 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

Whitehead v. State, 101 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 95, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 166 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

POSTER, J.

The appellant, defendant in the court below, was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors and having in his possession a still to be used for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

The defendant was found working at a still from which whisky was dripping. He was •cutting wood and piling it around the still, •daubing the trough; the still had a big fire around it, and was full of beer.

The defendant denied any interest in or control of the still, denied working at it or making any liquor, said he was there looking for hogs. The good character of the defendant was proven.

H. S. Maddox, a witness for the state, testified that he was sheriff of Henry county and arrested the defendant, that “when I raised up on him I told him to hands up and he said, ‘Don’t shoot me,’ and backed off.” The defendant moved to exclude the answer. Where objection is ixot interposed to the question, it comes too late after the question is answered. Downey v. State, 115 Ala. 108, 22 South. 479.

The evidence was relevant as part of the res gestee. Declarations connected with an act and unconsciously made as if spontaneous from the attendant circumstances are admissible as part of res gestee. Smith v. State, 53 Ala. 486; Jackson v. State, 53 Ala. 472. 1 Mayf. Dig. p. 774, par. 3; Laws v. State, 209 Ala. 174, 95 South. 819.

Prank Owens, a witness for the defendant, testified that the evening before the still was found he saw the defendant and several others in the woods sawing, and the defendant asked, “Did you have any convex1-sation that evening with the defendant about some hogs supposed to be over there in the place where they found the still?” The court sustained the objection by the state to the question. The defendant offered to prove by the witness and others that Owens had employed defendant that day to go the next day to hunt for hogs, and that while hunting hogs he came on this still. The court sustained objection by the state to the testimony offered. There was no exception reserved by the defendant. Rulings of trial courts on admission of evidence will not be reviewed, whore no exception was reserved. Coffee County v. Marsh, 209 Ala. 566, 96 South. 891; Henderson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 80, 95 South. 57.

Charge 3 refused to defendant is covered by given charge 1.

Charge 5 was faulty for the use of the word “supposition.” Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 South. 316; Walters v. State, 19 Ala. App. 92, 95 South. 207.

There is no error in the record. The judgment of the circuit coux*t is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

POSTER, J.

The appellant, defendant in the court below, was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors and having in his possession a still to be used for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

The defendant was found working at a still from which whisky was dripping. He was •cutting wood and piling it around the still, •daubing the trough; the still had a big fire around it, and was full of beer.

The defendant denied any interest in or control of the still, denied working at it or making any liquor, said he was there looking for hogs. The good character of the defendant was proven.

H. S. Maddox, a witness for the state, testified that he was sheriff of Henry county and arrested the defendant, that “when I raised up on him I told him to hands up and he said, ‘Don’t shoot me,’ and backed off.” The defendant moved to exclude the answer. Where objection is ixot interposed to the question, it comes too late after the question is answered. Downey v. State, 115 Ala. 108, 22 South. 479.

The evidence was relevant as part of the res gestee. Declarations connected with an act and unconsciously made as if spontaneous from the attendant circumstances are admissible as part of res gestee. Smith v. State, 53 Ala. 486; Jackson v. State, 53 Ala. 472. 1 Mayf. Dig. p. 774, par. 3; Laws v. State, 209 Ala. 174, 95 South. 819.

Prank Owens, a witness for the defendant, testified that the evening before the still was found he saw the defendant and several others in the woods sawing, and the defendant asked, “Did you have any convex1-sation that evening with the defendant about some hogs supposed to be over there in the place where they found the still?” The court sustained the objection by the state to the question. The defendant offered to prove by the witness and others that Owens had employed defendant that day to go the next day to hunt for hogs, and that while hunting hogs he came on this still. The court sustained objection by the state to the testimony offered. There was no exception reserved by the defendant. Rulings of trial courts on admission of evidence will not be reviewed, whore no exception was reserved. Coffee County v. Marsh, 209 Ala. 566, 96 South. 891; Henderson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 80, 95 South. 57.

Charge 3 refused to defendant is covered by given charge 1.

Charge 5 was faulty for the use of the word “supposition.” Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 South. 316; Walters v. State, 19 Ala. App. 92, 95 South. 207.

There is no error in the record. The judgment of the circuit coux*t is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 95, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack