Williams v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

171 So. 2d 474, 42 Ala. App. 563, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 377

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 1965

Docket8 Div. 983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 171 So. 2d 474 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 171 So. 2d 474, 42 Ala. App. 563, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 377 (Ala. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PRICE, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of a violation <of Title 29, Section 98, Code of Alabama, 1940.

The state’s evidence tended to show that ■defendant, a clerk in a grocery store, sold .a pint of whiskey to an Alcoholic Beverage ■Control Enforcement Officer.

Under the case of Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72, the solicitor’s argument to the jury must work a reversal of the judgment of conviction. The solicitor ■.shed tears in front of the jury and stated, “A kid could have got it — ” Objection to this statement was overruled. He stated further: “It could go uncontrolled in the hands of children and we can form our reasonable inference of the testimony.” Objection was overruled. The court attempted to instruct the jury on the subject of “inference from the evidence.”

No inference concerning children and the whiskey could be drawn from the evidence and we are of opinion the court’s instructions, instead of correcting the error, added to the injury.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PRICE, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of a violation <of Title 29, Section 98, Code of Alabama, 1940.

The state’s evidence tended to show that ■defendant, a clerk in a grocery store, sold .a pint of whiskey to an Alcoholic Beverage ■Control Enforcement Officer.

Under the case of Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72, the solicitor’s argument to the jury must work a reversal of the judgment of conviction. The solicitor ■.shed tears in front of the jury and stated, “A kid could have got it — ” Objection to this statement was overruled. He stated further: “It could go uncontrolled in the hands of children and we can form our reasonable inference of the testimony.” Objection was overruled. The court attempted to instruct the jury on the subject of “inference from the evidence.”

No inference concerning children and the whiskey could be drawn from the evidence and we are of opinion the court’s instructions, instead of correcting the error, added to the injury.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 474, 42 Ala. App. 563, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-alactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack