Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921

Couch v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided June 7, 1921 · Merritt

90 So. 42; 18 Ala. App. 236; 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 190 (Southern Reporter)

Counsel

Street Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant. The question as to the illegality of the grand jury is raised and discussed, but in view of the opinion that discussion is not here set out. Counsel also discuss the evidence, with the insistence that it was not sufficient to convict, but they cite no authority thereto. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.

Opinion of the Court

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and sentenced to the iicnitentiary for a term of not less than one year and three months and not more than two years. The questions raised as to the illegality of the grand jury that found and returned the indictment have been decided adversely^ to the contention of .the appellant in the case of Bob Lang v. State, 206 Ala. 58, 89 South. 166, and ante. p. 88, 69 South. 164.

[1, 2] Refused written charge 6 was substantially covered by given written charge 2 and the court’s oral charge. Aside from this, we think the charge is abstract and misleading, in that it singles out some facts or circumstances, and predicates the guilt of the ] defendant on whether they are proven, excluding a consideration on the piart of the jury of other facts, circumstances, tendencies of and inferences to be drawn from the testimony. These are the only questions insisted upon by appellant as being reversible error. We have given consideration to the, entire record and find no error therein..

The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.