n
3.
unless
facts
ty,
at time
sis,
and
ty;
charge
before
stated
therefor,
facturing
that
there
dridge
still,
proof
contrary
Reynolds
tum v.
porter.
dence,
accused is
ciled with
every
of the state of
strong may
stances
sible
properly
Appeal
ed
part
“The
“L. I
Jim
Saxon
Refused
Criminal
The indictment
Harwell G.
Brief of
Criminal
Criminal
State, ante, p. 201,
In
excluding
Refusal of
rest on circumstantial
erroneous.
fully
George
have
apparаtus, appliance,
the humane
charges
and
erroneous.
Charge
should not be a conviction
his
did not rest
as res
Aldridge
correct
prosecution for
other
prosecution
did
unless
indictment
of
guilt
grand
defendant not
&
and
circumstances,
alcoholic,
8 Alá.
guilt
res
possession
done the
possess
refused
charge
not shown
law
finding
Pitts,
law,
be the
law
F.
law
counsel
the law
reasonable
every
conversation
L
gestae.
covered
gestas
Davis,
charges
propositions of
ante, p.
theory
&wkey;829(1)—Refusal of
used
Smoot, Judge.
appeals. Affirmed.
Circuit
the accused. No matter
Alabama.”
you, gentlemen
against
refused,
a moral
@=>814(17)
@=>363
App.
provision
App.
L as follows:
or
facts, if
is
where
on
is insufficient. Abrahams
proved to a moral certain-
other
spirituous,
acts,
and
Clanton,
and
Atty. Gen.,
have
convicted
did
requires,
court’s oral
as follows:
said
which,
circumstantial evidence.
33S,
10Í So. 300.
guilty.”
could
possessing
possession
—Facts
conversations
admissible.
hypothesis
related
then
where
certainty
reasonable
device,
court’s
defendant’s
at
in his
evidence.
indictment Jim
county charge
some other
of the law
purpose
peace
not be convicted
still held
— Charge
law,
full
reach the Re-
Chilton
conviction
for the Statе.
thereto, were
can be recon-
and
of the
possession,
or
malt liquors
appellant.
charge
charge
guilt
were
far as
measure of
and
it excludes
you
possessing
BTJFKINS
than
substitute
hypothe-
still,
request-
circum-
at
convic-
admis-
is that
dignity
person
should county
Coun-
manu-
fairly
(20
Price
still,
still,
held
Gay
how
Dix
Mc-
evi-
Ta-
did
Al-
all
v.
the usual
having
appliance,
be
alcoholic, spirituous,
ry
ment
the state’s demurrer
often
dictment on
the indictment was
properly sustained.
versations
McKenzie
State,
and, hence,
less
session and related
ly
charge
familiar with location
which defendant
stated correct
2. Criminal lav/
line,
veyor
state,
essarily
state’s
say
clude such
jurisdictional, and a conviction cannot be sus-
tained without
(Court
1. Criminal
*1
STATE
with state
SAMFORD,
timony
based
[2] The
sustained
motion to1exclude should be made.
Affirmed.
[3]
We find no error
[5] The other refused
not
and
used fоr
Under
merely,
res
BUFKINS v. STATE.
predicated
All
Charge
state
told
does
the location
law.
Rehearing
here
fully
witness,
in
call for
gestse
his
of the facts
form, charging
developed
Appeals
is affirmed.
testimony.
him,
so ruled
similar
Code
finding
at
what
his
device,
still
state it
the return
witness
law
several
There
knowledge
line, may
D is never a
absence of
propositions
App.
possession
require
J.
such
expert testimony,
was located.
1907, 7140, proof- of
and
surveyor
&wkey;4Í9,420(10),
testifying
defendant’s motion
constitute
defendant should ex-
move to @=>336
@=>452(1) Witness,
on circumstantial
Denied Jan.
App. 344,
still,
purpose
alleged
indictments
of Alabama. Dec.
or substitute
and return of an indict
without error.
was located.
[1]
was demurrer
as to location of
information would be hear-
proof.
grounds,
the state line
properly overruled,
thereto,
on cross-examination
admissible
оr malt
and
manufacturing liquor,
at the
discussion.
was based on
—Conviction cannot be
of an indictment was
testify
could
told
charges,
the defendant with
circumstances,
to location of state
venue
of
former
indictment
good charge,
(
@=>For barrels that one Joe about county; *3 agents, ning lon together testified that branch in the defendant when get still of a hundred on a furnace and pound tified further “that he The witness. water the there, Dossett were would not the or; place bama.” Witness witness that he there when n’t Mobile in that the Dossett it; was necessаrily that the defendant did not own or have interest in the Durant Alabama. He also testified that it that the witness’ ant’s clothes exact location of the survey and ant that Mr. Durant is the one who made about 10 minutes was; of the still is based on with- the location of a is located. McDonald ever with its about a The evidence FOSTER, The defendant’s evidence tended to show quarter [1] The location of the Alabama; manufacturing the time keg make the over the fence. Witness place still that the defendant had been there that witness when from and there was in Alabama born within Mr. Durant told Cox 4l.% sack found county. fact, that made, put up quarter Stringfellow was still was on cross-examination it knew beer, whisky that was know of a mile from it, he came miles he call for J. about and what he Stringfellow witness’ the that witness was the in Alabama. The witness there; had Stringfellow, operation. exactly; survey; surveyed cooling he knew where and without in Mobile always Gillespie got Frank, Where witness is exactly, the still and was survey stated of a up the defendant Mississippi defendant knowledge always knew the and about prohibited liquors. beer found about also found two-thirds in a bucket gallons appellant Mississippi; location of the still expert testimony. that.the operation, reason of the testified that he knew mile him, that went with the testimony barrel; that knew it place may testify further slop was Lester Wilmer, but he the exact Wood, a county 4% the officers the also county; state line did not is; from the line.” complete connection what- 197 Ala. he operating line is based capacity survey nine tended to the exact made; on line also a it was in Ala- deputy a one hundred- miles still, defendant full of with for the state that knеw Cox,, federal formation testified that knows was “that he did- sustained and that from a little 5 whisky and Vaudie them; and state it fifty-gallon State, was in Mobile as to BUFKINS v. STATE survey convicted cation of developed state operating location; and that that that Mr. tended or exact Mr. line still was tried to lieved familiar ment in five-gal- he was with the still cured of that survey; that he whisky defend- survey- excepted. sheriff, sitting was in a still sugar. it Frank came; about shоw the true location point 'only Dur- run- without such that was line any State, tes- put the of the the lo- he veyor mation timony. tion of the McDonald defendant 15 Ala. commission sustained. Oode fellow Ala. witness that lowing question, witness anything quested instruction, Ala. the defendant Dossett, Ala. court was rested there objection knew the answer to the p. 294, versible ly answer to this been was fendant fact. Ala. witness established authority court should have clining same Stringfellow Ala. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [9] [8] the state was sustained the court. There is a substantially already the Proof of Where the evidence tends Defendant’s The evidence The defendant Refused It is told manner on by 100 was sufficient to given to allow the error, Frank Alabama and the by showing proposed 18 So. a witness for the the line No to do with that still?” correctly, not advised the should move to exclude such tes- v. Ala. him, If expected -by court court, the affirmative. the defendant jury beyond Wood, supra. had testified that he arrested 72 So. Mm such motion before there if it charges subsequent testimony 74 So. the instructions there. For venue question. Dossett, permissible 301; 237; “Was defendant Bufkins ar the refusal 73 1907, committed 100 So. morning?” venue counsel asked defendant’s question, crime, a former trial. Bush defendant unbroken line of hearsay merely, was error 529; 14 So. a conviction cаnnot been that he prove question. even Nichols v. 721; propounded fairly McKelton what based on what § A 127; Britton the disclose, through question might line prové venue, “Did Bufkins have becomes defendant, within 7140;, 312; Long If a reasonable doubt. jurisdictional, court. Jones v. surveyor, and by rule The state witness informed knew no had was though, Pounds to corroborate so, aught statutory Powell witness no error than the oral testified excepted. and defendant Objection constitute 1 were has nothing this evidence negative, 4 Mich. Randolph the v. to show the made Stewart, substantial If the de a error was sustaining to Lester State, Objection State, v. v. jurisdic question- more v. of that judicial String- a sur- State, enact infor- State, states fairly Whit, here. Acts Dig. fol 107 be in- de re re in an do 15 20 86 v. v. APPELLATE REPORTS 20 ALABAMA 460 (cid:127) man know how were a 1915, p. fendant the oral instructions in fendant was know, ther agree upon hours, considerаtion opinion, and struction sufficient So. So. So. were of one that fact into consideration tions. ed to the verdict of The [10] The affirmative 362; 303; Hardley reported instructed the Peagler v. returned to the court In (1) 815; reserved deliberative case, the Vann excepted Caldwell evidence Carter jury that, determining the they a verdict. The court guilty. jury might after in their deliberations. Tucker opinion, the they majority excеption stood and to should work a reversal following deliberating the were . body; jury orally, if a State; refused as there the which whether the oral charge for of take that fact which to a to them were of one jury might that he in their did not the considerations verdict Ala. for several Ala. and the fore- Ala. Ala. Ala. court stat- portion unable then predicate delibera- of them the did the de 412, 460, ask to body they takе fur- not de- in- 79 *4 to of ' court without a verdict.’ judge the trial appearance approval this tempt instant in R. language agreement Case the court Sheldon, “There should be And the See, also, Phœnix Ins. Co. v. verdict. Don’t the trying A. the court to slightest it ruling that was calculated to coerce In criminal cases it 644, probably case, should be rendered. of the learned trial to reach The court held the course Supreme demands a new 66 Am. St. cannot be above suggestion following: N. duress or unlike with the Juries, not to be áble urge or Y. did so. The correctness ” nothing in the intercourse of come referred an drive- 268, Court De Jarnette v. suggest to any upon agreement, pursued by Swallow v. coercion.” questioned. Any at coerce a jury.having jjack- Rep. 50 N. E. n of the there the coercion. to, trial. is not the which jurors the Meadows containеd jury judge in the 1 Randall’s quoted verdict, expressions agree so 840, Moog, People the improper the least the way Cox, But into an 41 L. upon duty trial and not the the of as *5 any injury resulted to the record juror mind, and then each not of .one from the instruction. ju- his fellow refuse to hear views opinion. our former We adhere reached, rors, agreements rarely be would rehearing application for is overruled. n mistrials would rights rule, liti- be great injustice, settled, gants not be would unnecessary delays in the administration justice, impossibility administering the (102 784) jury contempt law, disrespect and for the 471.) HOGLAND v. STATE. Div. system result. contemplates [12,13] The law (Court Appeals of Alabama. Jan. by a discussion their views shall harmonize 1925.) n ofthe possible. evidence, im if It jury judge .proper advise a to body, <&wkey;7 Property personal proper- —Owner confer are ty presumed possession. in constructive together, ring that a find Legal personal property title to carries they may opinion, take that fact- of one are possession, with it constructive owner deliberations. their into consideration legal tive presumed will title be to be in construc- is in this instruction no coercion of There possession possession unless actual verdict, verdict be intimation of shown no inbe another. reached, no invasion of &wkey;>224 Intoxicating liquors at most The instruction was —Burden not negative possession jury may accused of stiil. ma views of the consider the duty possession jority. equally consider It was beyond duty evidence convinced a rea- minority. It views of sonable doubt that defendant owner there- into consideration to take of, only required n opinions to introduce evidence re did not The instruction all. create sufficient to their minds a reasonable quire minority surrender guilt, doubt to his and burden was not on him their convictions and in with the views fall possession show that he they might majority, simply reason, Law, (cid:127)consider view's. those and com required law <®=»335—Accused not per mon that a trial sense demand establish innocence. mitted to instruct Burden of is not on accused to es- minority eon disprove themselves in the tablish his innocence or facts neces- sary majority. to establish views crime .sider the he is charged. exception this connec- reserved appellant. tion cannot avail the <&wkey;>56l(l)Acquittal required 4. Crimina! conviction is affirmed. if evidence raises reasonable doubt. Affirmed. eases, In all criminal evidence raises Rehearing. On mind guilt reasonable doubt of defendant’s acquitted. McKee, In the case he should be оf Ashford v. approves the fol Encyc. p. Appeal quotation County; lowing PI. & from Circuit Blount Pr. Steele, Judge. A. 304: O. Key-Num&eiied Digests <gx=^For o.tI\er see same KEY-NUMBER judge, in his dict jury lutely per in the Nor do the facts to the courtroom and R. R. dict should suffer the per arise: a more with sure that laid tion of your and er “The “Gentlemen, In about This ease Ante, verdict? the your jury disagree.” Whereupon interview with writing writing. jury: jury jury, and the cases down in the after deliberations, and don’t сome back paper writing, Co. v. I-Iolladay juiy? guilty, the they contempt you p. 76. as follows: Did the deliberating, many which had anything like an hour the trial remarks they presents (2) Phillips, may room. death. The court there said: did mean said return to of Driver and Did Case judge and Kansas had of court.” In the presiding they Gidley have understood saying bring the instruction tend Ann. to them when It is a it no agreed upon (Ala. App.) handed the clerk say the clerk reаd the had. Under jury “We, your invade the jury Cas. question Meadows it that. that, Case, it, Pate, handed judge within contempt, room as was involved yet effect: ‘Go returned hours returned 1915D, 663, City, the defendant court said While I am such they brought jury, agree then asked and resume their to Case, the to coerce the trial M. the rule province improp is him direc abso- & B. back ver ver- 86,1 any pa the pa to ing pay a which and each other’s gent dence, desire a doub’t in his and opinions decide the so; monwealth v. should are tion jury Instructions to curred sanction of the same joining and the from mere said P. charge reason with his fellow “An instruction In many from the listen, correctness jury associated, questions with that in with suggesting 42. There 139 Am. St. should Myers State People proper respect makes no with the same to arrive at the seriously in' in a verdict. it of each reasonably, himself, men, with case if proper regard pride conferring render. arguments; majority, should proper it Egland, 23 no most, submitted Tuey, and- of a own mind is equally honest, equally Richards, is or impression upon other; ask disposition juror who that the Rep. 1066, following they the intimating distrust the of those with whom 8 Cush. themselves whether and proper’ opinion. to each other’s 43 Ela. have heard the attention, nothing oath; duty should refuse together that it is their can the jurors truth, to that a S. D. and deference ought 1 Gal. jury them with conscientiously court to instruct of each : for the court to to (Mass.) 1, consider which is that a id. the verdict the reasonable should examine and under juror, dissent- weight to with they 678> the minds of convinced, the the end to, same evi- opinions, ought juror to notes minority whether not con- instruc duty candor, or suf- intelli- it was N. W. to the agree doubt equal Com they one .tо do to v. STATE HOGLAND large carry discre- “The trial vested (cid:127)fieiency fails evidence which of that judicial proceedings, fellows, conviction conduct minds to the may properly invading admonish the as as erroneous or -importance' desirability agreeing aon and attempting the manner to them to dictate every may urge verdict, to do so may make effort them to deliberations.” conduct their should which He with their consciences. to consistent Ry. Minneapolis, etc., pride jurors lay See, also, Gibson aside mere advise opinion judgment, re- not to to an adhere Co., Am. N. W. St. 55 Minn. jurors may say, gardless of what Rep. 482. merely through stubbornness, to examine deliberative'body. juror juror Each is a A spirit existing candor, difference fairness ju- .should, arguments of the other hear together talk over and to reason impressions them made and the rors by them, pos- harmonize such differences and disparity of is a there the evidence. may urge So, also, as reasons sible. together, paying opinion, confer expense agreeing on a time verdict the opinions respect proper other’s .a to each But it is not a new trial entail. jurors arguments proper censuring listening- their fel- an instruction 'and majority.” agreeing with the reaching verdict. the end low This can be by pres- alone done oftentimes no semblance of coercion in the There was contrary entation and discussion given in the instant instruction case. The juror otherwise, if each If it views. were intimate that the did upon entering an- for room were to guided ought or controlled to be conviction or he was for nounce that appear majority. Moreover, it does not be, might acquittal, were the case