Thomas v. State, 68 So. 549

Thomas v. State

68 So. 549 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1915

Lead Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

The facts testified to- by the state’s witnesses as to the transaction in which the defendant whs seen to change some money with and give to the supposed “go-between” a paper sack containing six half pints of whisky, which he delivered to the state’s witnesses in completing a sale between them, for which the said witnesses had previously furnished the money with the understanding that they were to receive the whisky, were sufficient to afford a basis for an inference of the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged, and the court properly submitted that question to the jury, and refused *296to exclude the evidence on defendant’s motion. It was a question of the weight of the evidence being sufficient for a conviction, and that is always a question for the jury.—Tice v. State, 3 Ala. App. 164, 57 South. 506.

The excerpt from the oral charge set out, to which an exception was reserved, in view of the evidence that the prohibited liquor was in a store or shop, was a correct statement of the law. — Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 64, § 4.

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was sufficient to justify the court in refusing to give the general charge' requested by the defendant and the special charge that there was no evidence that defendant kept prohibited liquors for sale. There is no obligation on the court to give charges to the effect that there is no evidence of certain facts.—Staples v. Steed, 6 Ala. App. 594, 60 South. 499.

The other written charge (the charges in the record are not designated so that they may be more definitely referred to) is argumentative, and states no proposition of law.

The record presents no reversible error.

Affirmed.

Rehearing

ON APPLICATION POR REHEARING.

Upon a reconsideration of the case on the defendant’s application for a rehearing, we are of the opinion that the written charge refused to the defendant and referred to in the original opinion as being argumentative is not subject to that criticism. The charge, we think, is good, and should have been given, and its refusal by the trial court is error that will require a reversal of the judgment and remandment of the case for another trial, and it is so ordered.

Other propositions insisted upon in the application do not require discussion, as they relate to questions *297upon which we passed in the original consideration of the case, and our views as there expressed on these matters seem to us to be correct.

Reversed and remanded.