Opinion
7 Div. 542.
June 29, 1929. Rehearing Denied October 8, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E. S. Lyman, Judge.
Chambers Horn was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Pruet Glass, of Ashland, for appellant.
In a criminal case, neither a mere preponderance of evidence nor any weight of preponderance of evidence is sufficient for the purpose of conviction unless it generates a full belief of the guilt of defendant to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 34, 17 So. 456; 3 Greenleaf on Evi. § 29; Wilson v. State, 84 Ala. 426, 4 So. 383; Shelton v. State, 144 Ala. 106, 42 So. 30; McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 22, 55 So. 159. Inculpatory admissions in the nature of confessions are governed by the same rules governing admissibility of confessions proper. Wilson v. State, 84 Ala. 426, 4 So. 383; Poarch v. State, 19 Ala. App. 161, 95 So. 781; Braxton v. State, 17 Ala. App. 169, 82 So. 657. It is error to permit the state to prove an alleged confession before proper predicate has been shown. Motes v. State, 20 Ala. App. 196, 101 So. 286; Carr v. State, 17 Ala. App. 541, 85 So. 852; Corbin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 441, 98 So. 132; Whitehead v. State, 16 Ala. App. 427, 78 So. 467.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
The verdict of the jury was guilty as charged in the second count of the indictment. The second count charged, in proper form and substance, the unlawful possession of a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages. The evidence was ample to prove the corpus delicti, and this was without dispute or conflict. There was likewise no dispute about this appellant being present at the still at the time of the "raid" by the officers, and the evidence of the state tended to show that this appellant was busily engaged in the operation of the still.This he denied, and offered other evidence to sustain him in his insistence. This conflict presented a jury question, and from the whole evidence the jury were fully warranted in returning their verdict as rendered.
The conversation between the officers and the men arrested at the still, at the time the raid was in progress and the arrests being made, were of the res gestæ, and therefore admissible. The court properly so held.
The defendant "objected" to a certain portion of the court's oral charge. An objection is not the equivalent of an exception; therefore the point of decision involved in this connection and insisted upon by appellant, is not presented.
There was no error in the court's rulings upon the special charges requested by appellant. Such of these charges as properly stated the law were fairly and substantially covered by the oral charge and the special numerous written charges given at defendant's request.
No error appearing, the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.