Case ID: ala-app_24/html/0243-01.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

(133 So. 745)
    REED v. STATE.
    1 Div. 984.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 10, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied April 7, 1931.
    
      Quincey W. Tucker and Woodford Mabry, both of Grove Hill, for appellant..
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen.,, for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The unexplained possession of any part or parts of any still, apparatus, or appliance, or any device or substitute tberefor commonly or generally used for, or that is suitable to be used in, the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages, is not a violation of law amounting to a crime, but such possession is prima facie evidence that tbe person so found in possession of the parts has in his possession the complete still, and proof of this fact beyond a reasonable doubt will authorize a conviction. Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331.

It is true that the possession of a part of a still, etc., raises a rebuttable presumption, as was held in Bowden’s Case, 23 Ala. App. 215, 123 So. 107; but in order for tbe defendant to be entitled to affirmative instructions on' this point, tbe rebutting evidence must show that the defendant, though possessing a part of a still, did not possess the complete outfit. The case at bar presents a very different state of facts to that presented in tbe Bowden Case, supra.

The unexplained possession of a part of a still suitable to be used in the manufacture of whisky having been proven, tbe corpus delicti was sufficiently proven to admit proof of the defendant’s written confession.

Refused charge 1 invades the province ' of the jury.

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

Affirmed.