Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925

Grimes v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided June 30, 1925 · Rice

105 So. 438; 21 Ala. App. 82; 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 236 (Southern Reporter)

Counsel

Paul O. Luck, of Columbiana, for appellant. The prosecution, having been begun by affidavit, should have continued thereon, and it was improper for the solicitor to file a new complaint. Code 1923, § 4646; Corkran v. State, 17 Ala. App. 112 , 82 So. 560 ; Walker v. State, 17 Ala. App. 3 , 81 So. 179 . The verdict was insufficient to support the judgment and was contrary to the charge of the court. Huckabaa v. State, 209 Ala. 4 , 95 So. 42 ; Pate v. State, 19 Ala. App. 642 , 99 So. 833 . Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Code 1923, § 4646. The observation by the solicitor was not prejudicial. Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala. App. 584 , 80 So. 158 .

Opinion of the Court

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition laws by having whisky in his possession, and appeals.

There is nothing new or novel involved in any question here presented. It would only consume space to discuss the evidence. The solicitor was properly allowed to file the complaint. Code 1923, § 3843.

As the ease was submitted to the jury, there was only one count in the complaint ; so the criticism of the verdict is *83 without merit. The statement objected to, in the argument by state’s counsel, was not improper. Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala. App. 584, 80 So. 158.

We have examined critically each exception reserved, as well as the record in this case, and, finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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