WHISENANT v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

7 Div. 834.

Attorney(S)

Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, for appellant. It is essential to a conviction under a charge for transporting prohibited liquors that defendant be proven to have some actual interest in the liquor. The oral charge of the court stating that there was some evidence of flight and voluntarily enjoining the jury that they must consider this as tending to establish defendant's guilt was wholly unauthorized on this record and highly prejudicial. Goforth v. State, 183 Ala. 66, 63 So. 8; Allen v. State, 146 Ala. 61, 41 So. 624. Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. S. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State. Charge 1 ignores the fact that defendant could be guilty if he aided or abetted the other parties. Crittenden v. State, 134 Ala. 145, 32 So. 273; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Harris v. State, 177 Ala. 17, 59 So. 205; Jones v. State, 22 Ala. App. 173, 114 So. 69; Bridgeforth v. State, 15 Ala. App. 502, 74 So. 402; Stewart v. State, 19 Ala. App. 389, 97 So. 684. The jury were merely instructed by the oral charge to consider the evidence of flight in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. It was more favorable to defendant than to the state, and was in no way erroneous.

Judges

RICE, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

WHISENANT v. STATE.

RICE, J.

Conviction for the offense of violating "Five Gallon Law." Acts of Ala. 1927, p. 704.

It was not necessary for appellant to "own" the whisky he was alleged to have transported in order to be guilty. Hence his written requested charge 1 was properly refused.

There is no merit in the exception to the portion of the trial court's oral charge specified, dealing with "flight," etc., by the appellant. In the first place, it was in no sense unfavorable to appellant; but, in the second place, it was not abstract nor erroneous.

There was not only a "scintilla" of evidence, pointing to appellant's guilt, but, we may observe, a wealth of such evidence. Manifestly he was not entitled to have given at his request the general affirmative charge to find in his favor. We see nowhere prejudicial error, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WHISENANT v. STATE.

Comments