Opinion
8 Div. 351.
March 2, 1937.
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lauderdale County; Robt. M. Hill, Judge.
Louis Poole was convicted of unlawfully possessing prohibited liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
"1. I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, if you believe the evidence in this case you should find the defendant not guilty.
"A-1. I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, if the guilt of the defendant depends upon the testimony of the witness Rufus Daniel, you believe from the evidence that the evidence of the said witness was wilfully and maliciously false, as to any material part of his said testimony, then you may disregard all the testimony of the said witness, Rufus Daniel, and find for the defendant not guilty.
"A-3. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and the law is that the defendant, cannot be convicted unless the circumstances are so strong as to convince the minds of the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."
Charges A-4 and A-5, are pertinently similar to charge A-3.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Charge A-1 was properly refused; other witnesses than the one named testified in behalf of the State. McKenzie v. State, 19 Ala. App. 319, 97 So. 155; Burgess v. State, 22 Ala. App. 357, 116 So. 327. Charges A-3, A-4, and A-5 were abstract, and therefore well refused. Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala. App. 24, 152 So. 55.
The exceptions reserved to the introduction of testimony on the trial are without merit. The testimony adduced could not in the remotest degree have affected the substantial rights of the defendant.
The testimony being in conflict, refused charge 1 was properly refused.
Refused charge A-1 was abstract. The guilt of the defendant did not depend upon the testimony of the witness, Rufus Daniel.
Refused charges A-3, A-4, and A-5 were properly refused. This case is not based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, on the contrary, the evidence is positive as to the corpus delicti and the guilt of the defendant. These charges assumed a state of facts which does not exist in this case. Such charges are always bad.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.