Dawkins v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. State

    139 So. 832 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    Evidence giving rise to mere suspicions, surmises, or conjectures of guilt is insufficient to support a conviction. Rowell v. State, 20 Ala. App. 597, 104 So. 351; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Thomas v. State, 19 Ala. App. 499, 98 So. 322; Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 483, 98 So. 317; Ballentine v. State, 19 Ala. App. 261, 96 So. 732; Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Jones v. State, 18 Ala. App. 116, 90 So. 135; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 217, 90 So. 16; Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala. App. 119, 89 So. 98; Washington v. State, 21 Ala. App. 239, 107 So. 34; Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 62, 100 So. 914; Scott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 360, 102 So. 152. The fact that a shipping tag bearing name of defendant's store was found on merchandise near the still and the finding of like merchandise at defendant's store, was not legal evidence. Ballentine v. State, supra; Tucker v. State, 21 Ala. App. 26, 104 So. 869.

  2. McFarland v. State

    118 So. 500 (Ala. Crim. App. 1928)   Cited 5 times

    Evidence of defendant's good character may be sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, and charge 1, so instructing the jury, should have been given. White v. State, 18 Ala. App. 96, 90 So. 63; Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720. Charge 3 was erroneously refused. Taylor v. State, 149 Ala. 32, 42 So. 996. Charge 19 should have been given. Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492. To authorize a conviction, the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the possession of a complete still usable for manufacturing prohibited liquors.

  3. Weaver v. State

    114 So. 67 (Ala. Crim. App. 1927)

    Curtis, Pennington Pou and W. C. Davis, all of Jasper, for appellant. Counsel argue for error in refusal of the affirmative charge and motion for new trial, and cite Knight v. State, 19 Ala. App. 296, 97 So. 163; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 217, 90 So. 16; Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala. App. 119, 89 So. 98; Matthews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 38, 104 So. 884; Parsons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 615, 104 So. 556; Moultrie v. State, 20 Ala. App. 258, 101 So. 335; Watts v. State, 19 Ala. App. 549, 98 So. 914; Fillmore v. State, 18 Ala. App. 334, 92 So. 94; Wheat v. State, 19 Ala. App. 538, 98 So. 698; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Plyler v. State, 21 Ala. App. 320, 108 So. 83; Rivers v. State, 20 Ala. App. 500, 103 So. 307. Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  4. Gunnells v. State

    111 So. 320 (Ala. Crim. App. 1927)   Cited 9 times

    S.W. Tate, of Anniston, for appellant. The evidence was not sufficient to justify a judgment of conviction. Allen v. State, ante, p. 23, 104 So. 867; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 483, 98 So. 317; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Mitchell v. State, 19 Ala. App. 248, 96 So. 653. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

  5. Camp v. State

    108 So. 79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 1 times

    A conviction predicated upon suspicion, conjecture, or guess should not be permitted to stand. Dawkins v. State, 98 So. 492, 19 Ala. App. 501. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  6. Gay v. State

    108 So. 617 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    Adams v. State, 18 Ala. App. 143, 90 So. 42; Smith v. State, 20 Ala. App. 442, 102 So. 733; Watkins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 246, 101 So. 334; Martin v. State, 20 Ala. App. 593, 104 So. 287. It was error to admit evidence of the size of the still. Gowen v. State, 18 Ala. App. 542, 93 So. 281. Charges on reasonable doubt should have been given. Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  7. Glover v. State

    104 So. 878 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 2 times

    Under all the evidence in this case the defendant was entitled to be discharged. The verdict of the jury finding defendant guilty under the second count of the indictment operated as an acquittal of the charge contained in the first count. It is conceded by the Attorney General representing the state in this court that the measure of proof required of the state was not met, and that the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge as to count 2, Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 62, 100 So. 914; Ex parte State, etc., 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 483, 98 So. 317; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Moultrie v. State (Ala.App.) 101 So. 335; Hill v. State, 20 Ala. App. 158, 101 So. 159; Ammons v. State (Ala.App.) 101 So. 511. The court committed reversible error in refusing the affirmative charge requested in writing by defendant. 20 Ala. App. 258.

  8. Harris v. State

    106 So. 55 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge, and its refusal was error. Pitts v. State, 19 Ala. App. 559, 99 So. 51; Biddle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 563, 99 So. 59; Harbin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 623, 99 So. 740; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  9. Hubbard v. State

    102 So. 915 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)

    Defendant was due the general charge. Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Mills v. State, 17 Ala. App. 493, 85 So. 867; Wharton's Cr. Evi. ยง 325; 2 Words Phrases, 1625; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Knight v. State, 19 Ala. App. 296, 97 So. 163; Wheat v. State, 19 Ala. App. 538, 98 So. 698. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

  10. Frederick v. State

    20 Ala. App. 336 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)   Cited 19 times

    Frank Head, of Centerville, for appellant. Counsel argues the insufficiency of the evidence and cites 10 R.C.L. 1007; Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 483, 98 So. 317; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 501, 98 So. 492; Wheat v. State, 19 Ala. App. 538, 98 So. 698; Knight v. State, 19 Ala. App. 296, 97 So. 163; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Watts v. State, 19 Ala. App. 549, 98 So. 914; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Balletine v. State, 19 Ala. App. 261, 96 So. 732; Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and O.B. Cornelius and Lamar Field, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.