Farmer v. State

Decided February 5, 1924

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1924-02-05

W. Haralson, Judge. George Farmer was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. The mere presence of one where whisky is being made is not evidence of his guilt. Lee v. State, 18 Ala. App. 566, 93 South. 59; Guin v. State, ante, p. 67, 94 South. 788; Moon v. State, ante, p. 176, 95 South. 830; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 South/ 61. No brief reached the Reporter.

Relies on 18 Ala. App. 456 - Morris v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1924-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1972

21 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 Thei’e 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 South. 830; 1 Guin v. State, ante, p. 67, 94 South. 788; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 South. 61.

¶3 The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. , ,

¶4 Reversed and remanded.

¶5 Ante, p. 176.