Windham v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Windham v. State

122 So. 804, 23 Ala. App. 27, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 303

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1928

Docket4 Div. 376.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 So. 804 (Windham 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

Windham v. State, 122 So. 804, 23 Ala. App. 27, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 303 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

These two defendants were indicted jointly, tried separately, and each convicted of the offense of having in possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquor. They have appealed jointly to this court.

In the trial of the Windham Case the portion of the oral charge to which exception was reserved did no more, in our opinion, than undertake to cover in a comprehensive manner the elements of “possession,” and, if it could be said that the part referred to was abstract in this particular case, it is inconceivable to our minds that the appellant Windham could have been injured by it. The witness Tate, stating that he did not know of the “raid” of his own personal knowledge, could not, of course, testify that he saw appellant Windham at a named place on the day the “raid” was made.

We do not think the portion of the solicitor’s argument objected to transcended the rule laid down in the ease of Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476. It will be noted that the solicitor did not undertake to make any statement as of a fact, which found no support in the evidence, but merely his conclusion as to what the evidence showed. This he might properly do.

We have carefully searched the records in each of the appeals here treated, and, finding no prejudicial error, the judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

These two defendants were indicted jointly, tried separately, and each convicted of the offense of having in possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquor. They have appealed jointly to this court.

In the trial of the Windham Case the portion of the oral charge to which exception was reserved did no more, in our opinion, than undertake to cover in a comprehensive manner the elements of “possession,” and, if it could be said that the part referred to was abstract in this particular case, it is inconceivable to our minds that the appellant Windham could have been injured by it. The witness Tate, stating that he did not know of the “raid” of his own personal knowledge, could not, of course, testify that he saw appellant Windham at a named place on the day the “raid” was made.

We do not think the portion of the solicitor’s argument objected to transcended the rule laid down in the ease of Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476. It will be noted that the solicitor did not undertake to make any statement as of a fact, which found no support in the evidence, but merely his conclusion as to what the evidence showed. This he might properly do.

We have carefully searched the records in each of the appeals here treated, and, finding no prejudicial error, the judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 804, 23 Ala. App. 27, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windham-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack