Moore v. State

<p>1. Criminal Law <&wkey;448(7) — Testimony that “Flake Trough” of a Distilling Outfit was Found on Defendant’s Premises not Objectionable as Conclusion.</p> <p>A “flake trough” being a part of a distilling outfit, it was competent for a state’s witness to testify that he found a flake trough while searching defendant’s premises, on which he testified that he found a still; the testimony being to a fact, and not a conclusion.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law <&wkey;338(6) — Animus of Witness not Examined on Behalf of the State Immaterial.</p> <p>Where a witness was not examined for the state, his feeling toward defendant was immaterial, and objection was properly sustained to a question seeking to elicit testimony on that issue.</p> <p>3. Criminal Law <S=»419, 426(1) — Whether Witness had Ever Heard of Defendant DIaking Whisky Immaterial.</p> <p>In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, the question whether defendant’s witness had ever heard of defendant making whisky was immaterial, and objection to such question was properly sustained.</p> <p>4. Witnesses <&wkey;388(2) — Unless Proper Predicate is Laid Witness cannot be Impeached by Contradictory Statements.</p> <p>. Statements by the state’s witness after he had been to the house of defendant, who was charged with manufacturing prohibited liquors, are immaterial save for purposes of impeachment, and, where no proper predicate was laid, objections to questions as to what the state’s witness said were properly sustained.</p> <p>@=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p> <p>5. Criminal Law &wkey;>417(l) — Statements made by One Who Searched Defendant’s Premises Immaterial Save for Impeachment.</p> <p>Statements made by a witness who had been to the premises of defendant, charged with manufacturing prohibited liquor, are immaterial save for impeachment.</p> <p>6. Witnesses <&wkey;237(3) — Question Assuming Fact not Proved is Objectionable.</p> <p>In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, a question as to whether a witness did not stay out on the road and threaten to kill defendant was objectionable, assuming a fact not proven.</p> <p>7. Witnesses <&wkey;370(l) — Question as to Witness’ Threats to Kill Defendant Immaterial.</p> <p>In a prosecution for manufacturing prohibited liquors, question whether witness did not stay out on the road and threaten to kill defendant helé objectionable, calling for testimony not relevant, to any issue in the case.</p> <p>8. Criminal Law <&wkey;823(4) — Error in Charge which was Corrected Immaterial.'</p> <p>Though the court in its oral charge erred in stating that if within three years before the finding of the indictment defendant made or manufactured prohibited liquor the jury should find him guilty, yet, where the error was explicitly corrected before the jury retired, it was immaterial.</p> <p>9. Criminal Law <&wkey;Sll(2) — Instruction Singling out Part of the Evidence is Properly Refused.</p> <p>In a prosecution for manufacturing prohibited liquors, an instruction that the fact that a still was found near defendant’s house is not alone sufficient to convict him was properly refused because it singled out a part of the evidence.</p> <p>10. Criminal Law <&wkey;753(l) — General Charge held Properly Refused.</p> <p>Where there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of guilt or innocence, a general charge was properly refused.</p> <p>¡gx^aFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p>