Williams v. State

111 So. 46, 21 Ala. App. 620, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 361
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 20 Ala. App. 604
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided December 14, 1926·No. 4 Div. 192.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of having prohibited liquors in his possession. There was abundant evidence to support the verdict returned. There was no prejudicial error in allowing the introduction in evidence of the search warrant, and the affidavit upon which same was issued, under the authority of which appellant’s premises were searched. While under the decisions of our Supreme Court it was not necessary, still it surely cannot be said to be improper, to let the jury trying the case know whether or not the search was illegal.

We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Williams v. State, 111 So. 46, 21 Ala. App. 620, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 361 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

111 So. 46 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.