Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0676-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SxVMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(98 South. 921)
    (7 Div. 873.)
    BRADLEY v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    July 10, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1923.
    Rehearing en Banc Granted Feb. 5, 1924.)
    Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge. William Arch Bradley was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    C. A. Wolfes, of Ft. Payne, for appellapt.
    A defendant, charged with a felony, may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Wallis v. State, 18 Ala. App. 108, 90 South. 35; 10 C. J. 704; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55, 42 Am. Rep. 95; Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. No brief reached the Reporter.
   SxVMFORD, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. After considering the testimony, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the witness Harcrew, ■ who was an accomplice in the crime, and who testified to the defendant’s participation in the offense charged, was not sufficiently corroborated by - facts and circumstances to authorize a conviction on his evidence. For this error, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

The evidence in this case has been again considered en banc. The former opinion is withdrawn. Rehearing granted. Application granted. Reversed and remanded.