From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farmer v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 5, 1924
99 So. 59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)

Opinion

7 Div. 974.

February 5, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb Country; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

George Farmer was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

I.M. Presley, of Fort Payne, for appellant.

The mere presence of one where whisky is being made is not evidence of his guilt. Lee v. State, 18 Ala. App. 566, 93 So. 59; Guin v. State, ante, p. 67, 94 So. 788; Moon v. State, ante, p. 176, 95 So. 830; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 So. 61.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

No brief reached the Reporter.


The defendant was convicted under an indictment which in two counts charged the manufacture of whisky and possessing a still, and from the judgment he appeals.

There was no evidence to connect the defendant either with the manufacture of whisky or the possession of a still, other than his mere presence at a still located on lands not in his possession. It has many times been held by this court that this is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge. Moon v. State (Ala.App.) 95 So. 830; Guin v. State, ante, p. 67, 94 So. 788; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 So. 61.

Ante, p. 176.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Farmer v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 5, 1924
99 So. 59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)
Case details for

Farmer v. State

Case Details

Full title:FARMER v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Feb 5, 1924

Citations

99 So. 59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)
99 So. 59

Citing Cases

Shipman v. State

Mere evidence that defendant Billy Davis was a passenger sitting on the right side of the rear seat of an…

Burnett v. State

Testimony showing only that defendant was present at a still is not sufficient to convict him of distilling,…