101 So. 911 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1924
This prosecution was commenced by affidavit in the county court, charging the appellant with having in his possession prohibited liquors. From the judgment of conviction in the county court, an appeal was taken to the circuit court. The only paper in the record showing the trial in the county court and appeal to the circuit court is the appeal bond executed by the defendant, reciting that he was convicted in the county court of having whisky in his possession, and by the judgment of said court fined $100 and sentenced to hard labor for 90 days, and that he has appealed from such judgment to the circuit court.
In Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General McClosky,
It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the court erred in sustaining the objection of state's solicitor to the introduction in evidence of the testimony of Allen Hasty, taken by a stenographer on the trial in the county court. It was shown that the witness had removed from the state. A Birmingham stenographer was employed to take the testimony of the witnesses in the county court, and had transcribed the notes of testimony of Allen Hasty, and the defendant offered this typewritten testimony in evidence. The stenographer was not the official court reporter, and was not present to identify the notes of the testimony of Allen Hasty.
The notes of the official court reporter are prima facie correct, when transcribed and duly authenticated. Harper v. State,
Charge 1 requested by defendant, has been repeatedly condemned as invasive of the province of the jury, and also as misleading. White v. State,
Our Supreme Court, in Davis' Case,
Charge 3 was faulty. Similar charges have been condemned in the following cases: Rogers v. State,
Charge 6, "You must find the defendant not guilty if the conduct of the defendant upon a reasonable hypothesis is inconsistent with his innocence," was obviously faulty and properly refused.
Charge 7 was fairly and substantially covered by the oral charge of the court, and its refusal was not error. McKenzie v. State,
Charge 9 was argumentative, and invasive of the province of the jury, and its refusal was not error.
The record discloses no error. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.