Hopkins v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Culverhouse v. State

    106 So. 874 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)

    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Evidence of tracks leading from a still to defendant's home is admissible. Jones v. State, 18 Ala. App. 626, 93 So. 332; Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 426, 93 So. 40; Morrow v. State, 19 Ala. App. 212, 97 So. 106. There was no error in admitting evidence of other still places. Blackstone v. State, 19 Ala. App. 582, 99 So. 323; Webb v. State, 19 Ala. App. 359, 97 So. 246; Vaughn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 698, 95 So. 927.

  2. Rials et al. v. State

    20 Ala. App. 228 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)   Cited 9 times

    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The motion for new trial does not appear in the bill of exceptions, and cannot be considered. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40. Excerpt from the oral charge will not be considered where no exception was reserved. Ex parte State, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.

  3. Blair v. State

    187 So. 645 (Ala. Crim. App. 1939)   Cited 7 times

    Ex parte Rials, 211 Ala. 615, 101 So. 630; Conn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 209, 96 So. 640, cert. den. Ex Parte Conn, 209 Ala. 453, 96 So. 642; Gotcher v. State, 19 Ala. App. 269, 97 So. 111; Wright v. State, 20 Ala. App. 22, 100 So. 458. "A motion for new trial will not be reviewed, where not set out in the bill of exceptions. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40; Wells v. State, 19 Ala. App. 403, 97 So. 681. "Motion for new trial was not presented for consideration on appeal, where not referred to in bill of exceptions. Flowers v. State, 22 Ala. App. 27, 112 So. 221, certiorari denied 215 Ala. 660, 112 So. 222; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 486, 127 So. 264.

  4. Slaton v. State

    109 So. 118 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 3 times

    Testimony as to the finding of whisky in the garden was properly admitted. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40; Jones v. State, 18 Ala. App. 626, 93 So. 332. It was proper to allow the state to impeach the testimony of the defendant. Wilkerson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 478, 93 So. 205.

  5. Sikes v. State

    107 So. 800 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 3 times

    Testimony that tracks led from the store of defendant to the liquor was admissible. Jones v. State, 93 So. 332, 18 Ala. App. 626; Hopkins v. State, 93 So. 40, 18 Ala. App. 423. The evidence was conflicting, and sufficient, from which the jury might draw a reasonable inference of guilt.

  6. Gilbert v. State

    106 So. 217 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 5 times

    Veal v. State, 19 Ala. App. 168, 95 So. 783; Moore v. State, 17 Ala. App. 625, 88 So. 25; Floyd v. State, 18 Ala. App. 647, 94 So. 192. Also to testify that skimmings were used in the manufacture of liquor. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40; Gowen v. State, 18 Ala. App. 542, 93 So. 281; Taylor v. State, 18 Ala. App. 439, 93 So. 305. BRICKEN, P. J.

  7. Moon v. State

    105 So. 427 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 5 times

    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The motion for new trial, not appearing in the bill of exceptions, will not be considered on appeal. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40. Rulings on evidence were without error. 4 Michie's Ala. Dig. 294.

  8. Wright v. State

    100 So. 458 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)   Cited 7 times

    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The motion for new trial, not being in the bill of exceptions, is not presented for review. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40. Counsel argue other questions, but without citing additional authorities. BRICKEN, P.J.

  9. Gamble v. State

    99 So. 662 (Ala. Crim. App. 1924)   Cited 11 times

    In this case, evidence of the finding of tracks was competent and admissible. Morris v. State, 124 Ala. 46, 27 So. 336; Hodge v. State, 97 Ala. 37, 12 So. 164, 38 Am. St. Rep. 145; Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569; Thornton v. State, 113 Ala. 44, 21 So. 356; Ethridge v. State, 124 Ala. 106, 27 So. 320; 1 Mayfield's Dig. 332; Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30, 6 So. 425. Any evidence tending to show motive on the part of the defendants was admissible. Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42; Prater v. State, 107 Ala. 26, 18 So. 238. Threats on the part of the accused against the owner of the burned building are admissible. Martin v. State, 28 Ala. 71; Hinds v. State, 55 Ala. 145; Hudson v. State, 61 Ala. 333. The motion for new trial, not being incorporated in the bill of exceptions, is not presented for review. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40. BRICKEN, P.J.

  10. PEEK v. STATE

    97 So. 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 11 times

    Evidence that there was malt in the mill was competent, as tending to show that the mill was to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors. Hopkins v. State, 18 Ala. App. 423, 93 So. 40. It was competent to show by the witness Lyons that the officers had a search warrant, without the production of the warrant on the trial.