Case ID: ala-app_23/html/0459-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRIOKEN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(127 So. 252)
    POCKRUS v. STATE.
    8 Div. 61.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    March 18, 1930.
    
      Proctor & Snodgrass, of Seottsboro, for appellant.
    Charlie 0. McCall, Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   BRIOKEN, P. J.

[1 ] The refusal to defendant of tbe affirmative charge as to count two of tbe indictment, presents the only question for our consideration on this appeal. As to this, tbe evidence was in conflict. That for tbe state tended to connect «this appellant with the possession of tbe illicit still, but be denied having any interest therein or possession thereof. He denied having made tbe confessions testified to by tbe state witnesses. He undertook to explain his admitted presence at tbe still, where he was arrested, by stating he had gone there in search of some cedar with wbicb to repair bis barn. We are of the opinion that tbe evidence before tbe jury was ample to justify them in tbe verdict rendered.

Tbe colloquy between tbe court and witness Charlie Russell of wbicb appellant complains in brief, whether improper or not, is not presented -for tbe consideration of this court, as no objection was interposed and no exception reserved in this connection. Tbe trial court will not be put in error in tbe absence of exception as to tbe point involved.

No error appearing, tbe judgment of conviction from wbicb this appeal was taken is affirmed.

Affirmed.