Wood v. State

155 So. 388, 26 Ala. App. 189, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 92
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 1934·No. 7 Div. 30.·Published

Opinion

SAMPORD, Judge.

The only point urged in brief is that the , evidence is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. We have carefully read the record in the light of our decisions holding that the mere presence at a still is not sufficient to convict, but when a defendant is found at a still, in company of others who are admittedly guilty, and it be shown that he did any act towards aiding in the carrying on of the distillery, it becomes a question for the jury to say whether or not he is guilty.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Wood v. State, 155 So. 388, 26 Ala. App. 189, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 92 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

155 So. 388 (Wood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.