From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 29, 1923
96 So. 653 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)

Opinion

7 Div. 851.

May 29, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; A.P. Agee, Judge.

Joe Mitchell was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed.

The witness Campbell having testified that he caught defendant and another person at a still, and that they had meal and water cooking in a vessel, the state propounded this question:

"I will ask you if you know of your own knowledge, from your experience in handling — observation — of the making of this illicit liquor, if that stuff you found there is what is used for making liquor?"

Over defendant's objection the witness was permitted to answer:

"Yes, sir. * * * That is a part of the process of making liquor, and I am familiar with that kind of business."

J.C. Burt, of Talladega, for appellant.

A witness, to testify as an expert, must first be shown to be such. McDonald v. Wood, 118 Ala. 589, 24 So. 86; Matthews v. Farrell, 140 Ala. 298, 37 So. 325. It is never permissible to introduce the opinion of an expert upon the very issue to be determined by the jury. Henry v. Davis, 149 Ala. 359, 43 So. 122, 13 Ann. Cas. 1090; Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 49 So. 224, 133 Am. St. Rep. 17.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

No brief reached the Reporter.


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

There was evidence for the state that the alleged offense was committed in Talladega county, and evidence for the defendant that it was in Clay county. When there is no proof of venue, it is, when properly presented, a question for the court to pass upon; but when, as in the instant case, it is a question of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the venue, it becomes a question for the jury, and this court will not interfere, unless the ruling of the trial court was invoked on the sufficiency of the evidence, and this ruling made the ground of attack. Pearson v. State, 5 Ala. App. 73, 59 So. 526; Hubbard v. State, 72 Ala. 164; Ragsdale v. State, 134 Ala. 24, 32 So. 674.

The witness Campbell was properly qualified, and the trial court did not err in permitting him to testify that meal and water were used for making liquor. Veal v. State, ante, p. 168, 95 So. 783.

Counsel for appellant insists that the trial court ex mero motu should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant on the second count. A trial court will not be put in error for failing to give the affirmative charge for the defendant where the same was not requested in writing. Section 5364, Code 1907, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 815. Furthermore, there was ample evidence to justify a conviction under the second count.

Requested charges 1, 2, and 3 related to the alcoholic content of the liquor, and referred to in the first count, which charged distilling, etc. A conviction under the second count was an acquittal of the charge of distilling. No error can be predicated upon the refusal of the charges not applicable to the second count.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 29, 1923
96 So. 653 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
Case details for

Mitchell v. State

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 29, 1923

Citations

96 So. 653 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
96 So. 653

Citing Cases

Hallmark v. State

It was competent for the state's witness Gay, after having been first qualified, to testify that from his…

Gunnells v. State

S.W. Tate, of Anniston, for appellant. The evidence was not sufficient to justify a judgment of conviction.…