Case ID: ala_217/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "' GARDNER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(117 So. 157)
    JACKSON v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 27.)
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 24, 1928.
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>l 179 — On certiorari, Court of Appeals’ finding of facts on affirmance of conviction is not reviewabie.
    Matters presenting a finding of facts by the Court of Appeals on affirming a judgment of conviction are not reviewabie by the Supreme Court on certiorari.
    2. Criminal law t&wkey;ll79 — Questions not considered by Court of Appeals cannot be passed-on by Supreme Court on certiorari.
    Questions not treated or considered by the Court of Appeals on affirmance of conviction do not come within the purview of the Supreme Court’s review on certiorari of the decisions of that court.
    ©rnFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
    Petition of John Jackson, Sr., for certiorari' to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Jackson v. State, 117 So. 156.
    Writ denied.
    Stell & Quillin, of Russellville, for appellant.
    It was error to overrule the motion for new trial. Barker v. State, 20 Ala. App. 564, 103 So. 914; Plyler v. State, 21 Ala. App. 320, 108. So. 83. The burden of proof is never shifted to the defendant in a criminal case to prove that he is not guilty. Barker v. State, supra; Scott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 360, 102 So. 152; Seale v. State, 21 Ala. App. 351, 108 So. 271.. Counsel discuss other questions, but without citing additional authorities.
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.,
    Brief did not reach the Reporter.
   ' GARDNER, J.

Petition for certiorari to-review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming a judgment of conviction of petitioner on a charge of unlawfully possessing a still.

As to some of the matters here pressed for consideration, they present a finding of facts by the Court of Appeals, here not re-viewable under our uniform decisions. Postal Tel. Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91.

The remaining questions argued wer.enot treated or considered by the Court of Appeals, and do not come within the purview' of our review of the-decisions of that court. Ex parte L. & N. R. Co., 176 Ala. 631, 58 So. 315 ; Parham v. State (Ala. Sup.) 116 So. 418.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and BOÜLDIN, JJ., concur. 
      
       Ante, p. 399.