From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 19, 1935
160 So. 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)

Opinion

8 Div. 120.

March 19, 1935.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Tom Davis was convicted of distilling and possessing a still, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Proctor Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant.

Mere presence of accused at a still is not sufficient to sustain a conviction unless there are acts on the part of accused showing some control or dominion over the operation of the still or some act which can be construed as aiding and abetting in the operation thereof. Farmer v. State, 19 Ala. App. 560, 99 So. 59; Medders v. State, 19 Ala. 628, 99 So. 776; Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848; Wallace v. State, 25 Ala. App. 334, 145 So. 583; Hill v. State, 22 Ala. App. 422, 116 So. 411.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief did not reach the Reporter.


The law ought to be consistent. We have reaffirmed our holding in Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848, more than once. See Shepard's Alabama Citations.

There, we held that a conviction such as the instant one could not be sustained upon mere proof of the accused's presence at a still, etc., not on his premises, and that he was seen to catch some of the whisky being manufactured in a bottle, taste it, and run away upon the approach of the officers.

Here, the only way the state would have us sustain the conviction is by testimony tending to show that appellant was present at a still, etc., on premises not his own, and that he carried a rock, or carried some rocks, and deposited it or them near the still. What the rocks were to be used for does not appear, except by pure speculation.

We can easily imagine that this old man (shown to be seventy) is guilty. But the evidence, as we read it, and as we have held in numerous cases, was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. See Wallace v. State, 25 Ala. App. 334, 145 So. 583, and Dickey v. State, supra.

For the error in overruling appellant's motion to set aside the verdict of the jury, and the judgment entered thereon, the said judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 19, 1935
160 So. 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVIS v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Mar 19, 1935

Citations

160 So. 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)
160 So. 266

Citing Cases

Rikard v. State

Carrying whiskey away from a still and hiding it and starting back in the direction of the still and running…

Wood v. State

The evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Allen v. State, 25 Ala. App. 181, 142 So. 777;…