From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casey v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 30, 1923
97 So. 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)

Opinion

7 Div. 813.

May 29, 1923. Rehearing Denied June 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Oscar Casey was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed.

C.A. Wolfes, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.

The indictment was demurrable for joining two felonies. Tennison v. State, 18 Ala. App. 159, 89 So. 826.

Harwell G. Davis. Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

There was no improper joinder in the indictment. Nichols v. State, 18 Ala. App. 184, 89 So. 847.


The first count of the indictment charged the defendant with distilling, and the second count with having in his possession a still to be used for manufacturing, prohibited liquors.

The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. It was proper to join the charges of distilling and possessing a still in the same indictment. Nichols v. State, 18 Ala. App. 184, 89 So. 847.

There was ample evidence to justify the conviction of the defendant, and the trial court properly refused charges 1 and 2, the general affirmative charges for the defendant.

There is no merit in the exception reserved to that part of the oral charge of the court as follows: "If the evidence warrants, you may convict under either of these counts or both of them." The oral charge must be considered as a whole.

The trial judge charged, among other things, that the burden was on the state to introduce evidence which convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant before the jury could convict him, and charged further:

"If the evidence warrants you may convict under either of these counts or both of them or you may acquit."

The law was given to the jury fully, fairly, and correctly by the trial judge in his oral charge.

There was a general verdict of guilty. But the judgment entry shows that the court adjudged the defendant guilty of distilling. The adjudication is not an essential part of the judgment entry, as the sentence itself implies an adjudication of guilt. The judgment was sufficient. Ex parte State (In re Hardeman) 202 Ala. 694, 81 So. 656, and authorities cited.

The record fails to disclose any error, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Casey v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 30, 1923
97 So. 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
Case details for

Casey v. State

Case Details

Full title:CASEY v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Jun 30, 1923

Citations

97 So. 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
97 So. 165

Citing Cases

Murray Well-Drilling v. Deisch

The appeal is premature in that the appeal in CA A33408 was pending at the time the judgment and decree of…

International B. v. Oregon Steel Mills

The purposes for doing so may include, among other things, clarifying the meaning and effect of our judgment.…