Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ala. App. 576

99 So 159

Dunn v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 22, 1924

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1924-01-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“only evidence in any way connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 533 So. 2d 637 - Flanagan v. State

“I tell you that this defendant is guilty,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 484 So. 2d 1199 - Galloway v. State

Relies on 18 Ala. App. 277 - Baxley v. State · Segars v. State · 18 Ala. App. 606 - Estes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-01-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 725 So. 2d 1003 - Price v. State (1997), 659 So. 2d 933 - Hunt v. State (1994)

26 state decisions

601924193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

FOSTER, J.

¶1 The appellant was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

¶2*577 It was permissible for the state to sliow that Lem Barrentine was a deputy sheriff of Tuscaloosa county at the time he raided the still.

¶3 Where objection was sustained to a question ashed a state’s witness on cross-examination, hut the witness answered the question, the defendant, getting full benefit of the answer, was not prejudiced by the ruling of the court, and such ruling is not reversible error.

¶4 That portion of the argument of the solicitor was as follows: “I tell you that this defendant is guilty” — was merely an argument of the inference drawn from the testimony by the solicitor, and was not improper, and should not work a reversal of the case.

¶5 Charge 2 requested by the defendant states a correct proposition of law, and should have been given. Upon a careful reading of the testimony we find that a conviction of the defendant did depend upon the testimony of a single witness, the testimony of Barrentine being the only evidence in any way connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime. In a criminal case the jury are not authorized to find a verdict of guilty on the testimony of a single witness if they have a reasonable doubt of the truth of his statements. Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 5 South. 558; Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277, 90 South. 434; Estes v. State, 18 Ala. App. 606, 93 South. 217.

¶6 This opinion is substituted for the original opinion.

¶7 Eor the error indicated, the application for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

¶8 Reversed and remanded.

/19/alaapp/576 · .json · Public domain