Case ID: ala-app_20/html/0690-09.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(104 So. 923)
    Bob PARCUS v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 174.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 1925.)
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge. Boh Parcus was convicted of distilling, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Hoyt Long, of Guntersville, for appellant.
    The mere presence of defendant at the place where liquor was being manufactured was not sufficient to justify a conviction for distilling. Fillmore v. State, 18 Ala. App. 334, 92 So. 94; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563; Thomas v. State, 19 Ala. App. 499, 98 So. 322. The state did not discharge its burden of proof in this case. Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 483, 98 So. 317; Hammons v. State, 18 Ala. App. 470, 92 So. 914; Medders v. State, 19 Ala. App. 628, 99 So. 777.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals. The evidence, in its strongest aspects for the state, was: A still was found in operation; some men were working at or around it; that defendant was seen about 30 yards away from the still, standing up, doing nothing; that, when witness was observed by defendant, he (defendant) picked up his coat, lying near the still, and ran. There was a dense fog covering the territory. Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he was not there; that he was at home, one mile or more away; that he knew nothing of the still, and had nothing to do with it. The evidence creates a suspicion that; defendant is guilty; but that is all. We have carefully read it, and cannot find therein basis for holding that the presumption of innocence, which the law raises for the protection of defendants on trial for crime, has been overcome. The trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563. Reversed and remanded.