Opinion
7 Div. 457.
February 14, 1928. Rehearing Denied March 6, 1928.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Street Burgess was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Burgess v. State, 217 Ala. 341, 116 So. 328.
Charge 10, refused to defendant, is as follows:
"I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that you are not authorized to disregard the testimony of the defendant because of the fact he is the defendant."
Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.
Defendant was entitled to show the witness testifying against him had an interest in his conviction. Lock v. State, 21 Ala. App. 81, 105 So. 431. Charge 10 states the law and should have been given. Code 1923, § 7721. Counsel discusses other questions, but without citing additional authorities.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brief did not reach the Reporter.
The contention is made that defendant was not allowed to show on cross-examination of state's witness Kitchens a financial interest on the part of Kitchens in the conviction of defendant. This is not sustained by the record. The straight salary paid to Kitchens as a general deputy by the sheriff of the county was an immaterial inquiry, but in any event the next answer of the witness disclosed his financial interest in prosecutions for violating prohibition laws which met any possible objection.
The conviction of defendant did not depend upon the testimony of state's witness Kitchens alone; therefore, a charge which instructed the jury, "Unless you are satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony of state's witness Kitchens is true, you must find defendant not guilty under count 1 of the indictment," was properly refused.
Refused charge, which we have numbered 10, is invasive of the province of the jury. The correct rule was given to the jury by the court in his general charge.
We find no exception to the court's oral charge, and hence we do not pass upon the contention in appellant's brief relative thereto.
There was evidence sufficient to convict under either or both counts of the indictment, and hence affirmative charges requested by defendant were properly refused.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.