Dodd v. StateDodd v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Samford
Chаrge 1 refused to defеndant states the policy of the law as it has been many times declared, but is an argument, and its refusal will never justify a reversal when the trial judgе has instructed the jury fully as to the law of the case as was done in this triаl.
Refused charge 3 is misleading, and was properly refused.
It is true, as contended by the appellаnt, that the conviction in this case rests solеly upon the testimony of a special dеputy, who carried a “blue card” issued by the chief law enforcеment officer, but that fact is not ground for impеachment. This testimony, if believed by the jury, was sufficient upon which to prediéate a verdict. Thе testimony was direct аnd unequivocal that the defendant was prеsent and participating in the crime charged, and, while there wеre many witnesses testifying for defendant tending to еstablish an alibi, the decision is not for us.
It was cоmpetent for the stаte to prove by the witness Duncan that he hаd seen the still in question a few days before thе date on which defеndant is charged with being рresent. The offensе charged in count 2 is сontinuing, and evidence of the existencе of the still prior to аnd at the time defendant was found there is a part of the res gestee.
Other exceptions reserved are without merit.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.