From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 9, 1922
93 So. 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)

Opinion

8 Div. 930.

April 18, 1922. Rehearing Denied May 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Pruitt Patterson was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws, and he appeals. affirmed.

Certiorari denied, 93 So. 923.

The following charges requested by the defendant were refused by the trial court:

10. "The court charges the jury that there is no evidence that any liquor had been made or distilled at the place spoken of by the sheriff and witnesses for the state after January 25, 1919."

11. "The court charges the jury that there is no evidence that any liquor mentioned in the indictment was made, manufactured, or distilled, notwithstanding there may be evidence tending to show that he may have been connected in some way with making preparation to make, manufacture, or distill some of all of the liquors mentioned in the indictment."

12. "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they will find the defendant not guilty."

13. "The court charges the jury that the possession of sugar is not evidence that the one in possession made liquor."

14. "The court charges the jury that the possession of sugar sacks is not evidence that the possessor of such sacks make liquor."

15. "The court charges the jury that it is not a question of whether you move to 'Honey,' or move the defendant into your neighborhood, but whether you are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment."

16. "The court charges the jury that the fact Hardin complained to defendant about his (Hardin's) cow or hog getting drunk, and defendant then and there denied having anything to do with the matter or knew nothing of it, is not evidence that the defendant knew anything of the distillery."

17. "The court charges the jury that the fact that Hardin complained to the defendant about his hog or cow getting drunk is no more evidence against him than it is against others to whom he complained."

John A. Lusk Son, of Guntersville, for appellant.

The court erred in declining to exclude evidence as to similarity in size of sacks found in the wagon and in the smokehouse. 16 Ala. App. 77, 75 So. 625; 16 Ala. App. 170, 76 So. 407. The court erred in refusing defendant's requested charges 10 to 17, inclusive. 17 Ala. App. 310; 17 Ala. App. 479, 85 So. 870.

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

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


The defendant was convicted under an indictment which charged that he made or manufactured alcoholic, spirituous, malted or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcoholic since January 25, 1919.

The finding of a still set and ready for operation a short distance from the defendant's house in June, 1919; 36 barrels of beer there with sugar in the bottom of the barrels; coals or ashes about the furnace, with one tank full of beer; the finding of a two horse wagon track leading from the still to defendant's house; the finding of such a wagon at defendant's house with empty sugar sacks therein, and unusual quantities of sugar in the defendant's smokehouse in sacks; the meeting of the defendant going in the direction of, and close to, the still at the time it was located by the officers; and the fact that shortly after complaint was made to defendant, that a neighbor's cows were being made drunk by (supposedly) drinking the beer at the still, that the still place was fenced up — were all facts and circumstances which had a tendency to show the manufacturing of prohibited liquors by the defendant, and this subsequent to January 25, 1919, and made the question of defendant's guilt vel non one for the jury to pass upon.

It is not shown by the record that the defendant objected to the question that called forth the answer, "that the empty sacks in the wagon were the same size sacks as those in the smokehouse," and on this account the trial court will not be put in error for overruling the motion to exclude the answer. It cannot be said, however, that such ruling would have been error had the question been objected to.

There was no error in the refusal to give the several written charges requested by the defendant.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Patterson v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 9, 1922
93 So. 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)
Case details for

Patterson v. State

Case Details

Full title:PATTERSON v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 9, 1922

Citations

93 So. 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)
93 So. 691

Citing Cases

Hamlett v. State

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. One cannot wait until a…

Watkins v. State

The fact that parts of a still and the finished product were found was sufficient to justify the verdict.…