Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(84 South. 393)
    MURRAY v. STATE.
    (1 Div. 328.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Nov. 25, 1919.)
    1. Criminal Law <@=^753(2) — Affirmative Charges Properly Refused, Where Evidence Tended to Prove Allegations.
    Where there, was evidence tending to prove the allegations in the several counts of the complaint, defendant’s requested affirmative charges were properly refused.
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1170(4 (2) — Erroneous Question Held Harmless, in View of Answer.
    In prosecution for violating the prohibition law, question to defendant, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?” if error, was rendered harmless by answer that he could not remember.
    &wkey;»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.
    Ed. Murray was convicted on a charge of violating the prohibition law, and from the judgment he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. W. Tompkins, of Mobile, for appellant.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The only errors complained of are the refusal of the court to give at the request of the defendant in writing the affirmative charges as to the several counts in the complaint, and to the action of the court in allowing the solicitor to ask the defendant, while on the witness stand, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?”

There was evidence tending to prove the allegations in the several counts of the complaint, and therefore the charges requested were properly refused.

The defendant, in answer to the question, “Where were you convicted for serving liquor?” answered that he did not remember. If the question was erroneous, the answer rendered it harmless.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.