RICE, J.
¶1
The questions sought by defendant to be put to the prospective jurors did not, we think, come within the influence of section 8662 of the Code of 1923, and were, by the trial court, in its discretion, properly disallowed.
¶2
There was ample evidence to support the verdict of guilt, and it was not error to refuse to give at appellant’s request the general affirmative charge in his favor, or to overrule his motion for a new trial.
¶3
The judgment is affirmed.
¶4
Affirmed.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture Appeal from De Kalb County Court; E. M. Baker, Judge.
K. E. Killian was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Killian v. State, 217 Ala. 517 , 116 So. 899 .
The bill of exceptions shows the following:
"The court proceeded to examine the jurors in attendance upon the court as to their qualifications
for the trial of this case and thereupon the defendant requested the court to examine the jurors (as) to whether or not they or any of them were members of an organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. The court declined to make such inquiry of the jurors, and to the action of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted."
The only evidence in the case was that given by two witnesses for the state. One (Sol Miller) testified: That he was a deputy sheriff, and knew the defendant. That he was at defendant's place at Flanders, in De Kalb county, the latter part of March, 1926, and found ten gallons of corn whisky in a ten-gallon keg under the counter of his store, covered with some sacks and things.
On cross-examination: That he did not know who runs the store.
On redirect examination: That he supposed it was defendant's store.
The other witness (Frank Leath) testified that he went with Miller to defendant's place and found some whisky; that defendant was in business at Flanders; that Miller went in and found the whisky under the counter, covered with sacks; that the store was at Flanders, and it was defendant's store. On cross-examination this witness testified that he supposed it was defendant's store; that witness had passed there several times, but had never been in the store before; that he knew defendant ran the store, basing his knowledge on the fact that defendant was there in the store every time witness passed there.
Defendant offered no witnesses. Source: CourtListener
