Opinion
6 Div. 9.
February 2, 1937. Rehearing Denied March 16, 1937.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Q. Smith, Judge.
J. W. Fife was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
F. F. Windham, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Even though the evidence is without conflict, the court should not give the affirmative charge for the State if different inferences might be drawn from the evidence. Evidence of defendant's good character may be offered to generate a doubt of his guilt. Axelrod v. State, 7 Ala. App. 61, 60 So. 959; 16 C.J. 584; McMillan v. State, 26 Ala. App. 596, 164 So. 395.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Kohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence offered by the State was without conflict, the defendant merely offering evidence to prove his good character. Proof of good character is not itself sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. The affirmative charge with hypothesis may properly be given for the State under such situation. Jones v. State, 96 Ala. 56, 57, 11 So. 192; Whittaker v. State, 17 Ala. App. 624, 88 So. 188; Welden v. State, 23 Ala. App. 85, 121 So. 4; Drummond v. State, 20 Ala. App. 286, 102 So. 723; Ex parte Drummond, 212 Ala. 410, 102 So. 726; Carroll v. State, 17 Ala. App. 616, 88 So. 159; Witt v. State, 5 Ala. App. 137, 59 So. 715; Simmons v. State, 158 Ala. 8, 48 So. 606.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating our laws known as "Prohibition Laws" by illegally having in his possession beer containing more than the permissible per cent of alcohol.
The State's testimony was undisputed; and tended to make out a clear case of guilt against the defendant (appellant) — i. e., guilt of the offense charged.
Appellant introduced testimony tending to show that he bore a good character; but this court has ruled that such testimony, alone, is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. Witt v. State, 5 Ala. App. 137, 59 So. 715.
There was hence no error in the trial court's giving to the jury the requested general affirmative charge with hypothesis to find in favor of the State — though such practice is dangerous.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.