Summary
In Bowlin v. State, 24 Ala. App. 192, 132 So. 600, it was held error to refuse a charge identical with Charge I-2, supra.
Summary of this case from Livingston v. StateOpinion
7 Div. 792.
February 24, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Carl Bowlin was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
The following charge was refused to defendant:
"I charge you that in reaching your verdict in this case you may consider the pecuniary interest that any witness may have in the result of your verdict in weighing the testimony of such witness."
Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.
The refusal of charge A was error to reverse. Shepard v. State, 20 Ala. App. 627, 104 So. 674.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brief did not reach the Reporter.
Without setting out the evidence in detail, but which we have read and carefully considered, we conclude that on the evidence adduced the question of the guilt or innocence was properly submitted to the jury. As we have frequently said, the mere presence of a defendant at or near a whisky still will not justify a conviction. But, if there be added to such presence any set of defendant showing, or tending to show, dominion over the still, the question becomes one for the jury.
This case, however, must be reversed for the error of the trial court in refusing to give written charge A. Almost, if not quite, the identical question was presented in Layton v. State, 22 Ala. App. 523, 117 So. 610.
The judgement is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.