Davis v. State
Davis v. State.
Opinion of the Court
RICE, Judge.
The law ought to be consistent. We have reaffirmed our holding in Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375 , 115 So. 848 , more than once. See Shepard’s Alabama Citations.
There, we held that a conviction such as the instant one could not be sustained upon mere proof of the accused’s presence at a still, etc., not on his premises, and that he was seen to catch some of the whisky being manufactured in a bottle, taste it, and run away upon the approach of the officers.
Here, the only way the state would have us sustain the conviction is by testimony tending to show that appellant was present at a still, etc., on premises not his own, and that he carried a rock, or carried some rocks, and deposited it or them near the still. What the rocks were to be used for does not appear, except by pure speculation.
We can easily imagine that this old man (shown to be seventy) is guilty. But the evidence, as we read it, and as we have held in numerous cases, was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. See Wallace v. State, 25 Ala. App. 334 , 145 So. 583 , and Dickey v. State, supra.
For the error in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury, and the judgment entered thereon, the said judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.