Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Ala. App. 40

129 So 713

Higginbotham v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1930

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1930-06-30

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1985

4 state decisions

Relies on 22 Ala. App. 353 - Pruitt v. State · 22 Ala. App. 455 - Pouncey v. State · Sarasota Business Properties, Inc. v. Sarasota Bay Hotel Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 There was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain a conviction on the second count of the indictment which charged the unlawful possession of a still, etc. The defendant and Burt Guff, who was tried jointly with this defendant, were shown to have been in possession of parts of a still commonly used or suitable to be used in the manufacture of prohibited liquors. Where this is shown to the satisfaction of a jury, it becomes a question of fact as to whether the defendant was in possession of the complete still. It frequently happens that a defendant has in his possession only a part of a still which is found or seen, and, when this is the ease, the burden rests upon him of overcoming the prima facie case. The cases of Daugherty v. State, 22 Ala. App. 400, 116 So. 308, Pouncey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 455, 116 So. 803, Suggs v. State, 22 Ala. App. 311, 115 So. 289, and Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848, are easily differentiated from the case at bar. Cases more in point in stating the law applicable to this case are Pruitt v. State, 22 Ala. App. 353, 115 So. 698; Whigham v. State, 21 Ala. App. 454, 109 So. 281.

¶2 While the question asked state’s witness, “Was the tin can there that he described part of an outfit suitable for the manufacture of liquor?” called for a conclusion, the witness had already answered without objection . that the tin can was suitable for manufacturing whisky. The error was without injury.

¶3 When the defendant was on the witness stand, he was asked if he did not make a certain statement. To this he answered “No.” On rebuttal the state offered a witness who testified that defendant did make the statement. This last was admitted without objection. The predicate was laid for impeachment, and it was proper to allow it to be done. If the proof of the statement was a confession, it should have been objected to on that ground when the state offered evidence to prove it.

¶4 There is no error' in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶5 Affirmed.

/24/alaapp/40 · .json · Public domain