Opinion
1 Div. 984.
February 10, 1931. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; T. J. Bedsole, Judge.
Allen Reed was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
The following charge was refused to defendant:
"1. The Court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant possessed a part of a still suitable for making whiskey the law presumes that he possessed the other parts but that presumption is rebuttable and if the jury believe from the evidence that the arresting officers made a thorough search of the premises and failed to find the other part or parts necessary to make a complete still, that then, and in that event, if they believe the evidence, that presumption would be rebutted."
Quincey W. Tucker and Woodford Mabry, both of Grove Hill, for appellant.
The statute only makes possession of a part of a still prima facie evidence of a complete still, which is rebuttable and which was rebutted by testimony that a thorough search was made without finding the missing parts. Defendant was hence due the affirmative charge and charge 1. Whigham v. State, 21 Ala. App. 454, 109 So. 281; Bowden v. State, 23 Ala. App. 215, 123 So. 107; Pate v. State, 19 Ala. App. 642, 99 So. 833; Berry v. State, 20 Ala. App. 102, 100 So. 922; Shelton v. State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377; Code 1923, §§ 4656, 4657. A confession not corroborated by independent evidence of the corpus delicti is not sufficient to support a conviction. Harden v. State, 109 Ala. 50, 19 So. 494; Hunt v. State, 135 Ala. 1, 33 So. 329; Johnson v. State, 59 Ala. 37; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187, 28 Am. Rep. 698.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brief did not reach the Reporter.
The unexplained possession of any part or parts of any still, apparatus, or appliance, or any device or substitute therefor commonly or generally used for, or that is suitable to be used in, the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages, is not a violation of law amounting to a crime, but such possession is prima facie evidence that the person so found in possession of the parts has in his possession the complete still, and proof of this fact beyond a reasonable doubt will authorize a conviction. Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331.
It is true that the possession of a part of a still, etc., raises a rebuttable presumption, as was held in Bowden's Case, 23 Ala. App. 215, 123 So. 107; but in order for the defendant to be entitled to affirmative instructions on this point, the rebutting evidence must show that the defendant, though possessing a part of a still, did not possess the complete outfit. The case at bar presents a very different state of facts to that presented in the Bowden Case, supra.
The unexplained possession of a part of a still suitable to be used in the manufacture of whisky having been proven, the corpus delicti was sufficiently proven to admit proof of the defendant's written confession.
Refused charge 1 invades the province of the jury.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.