From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gooch v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 4, 1930
126 So. 607 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)

Opinion

8 Div. 902.

March 4, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr., Judge.

Cicero Gooch was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Jas. C. Roberts, of Florence, for appellant.

In a prosecution for violation of the prohibition law, attempts of the solicitor to inject into the trial the fact that the defendant at another time and place had been caught making liquor is reversible error. Whitfield v. State, 21 Ala. App. 490, 109 So. 524; Cobb v. State, 20 Ala. App. 546, 103 So. 387; Lyles v. State, 18 Ala. App. 62, 88 So. 375; Miller v. State, 21 Ala. App. 495, 109 So. 528. Defendant was entitled to a new trial. Bowden v. State, ante, p. 215, 123 So. 107.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief did not reach the Reporter.


It constituted reversible error to allow the state to introduce testimony, over appellant's timely objection and exception, that appellant had been previously convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., prohibited liquors. Ex parte Marshall, 207 Ala. 566, 93 So. 471, 25 A.L.R. 338; Lakey v. State, 206 Ala. 180, 89 So. 605.

But, aside from this, the court has read the entire evidence in the case, sitting en banc; and, without discussing same, we state our conclusion to be that it was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury finding appellant guilty. Appellant's motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Gooch v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 4, 1930
126 So. 607 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
Case details for

Gooch v. State

Case Details

Full title:GOOCH v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Mar 4, 1930

Citations

126 So. 607 (Ala. Crim. App. 1930)
23 Ala. App. 437

Citing Cases

Slayton v. State

Over his objection — due exception being reserved — appellant was required to answer the question, and…

Robinson v. State

Code 1940, Tit. 14, § 174(a); Hayes v. State, 22 Ala. App. 264, 114 So. 674; Fair v. State, 16 Ala. App. 152,…