Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0555-01.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

(99 South. 50)
    (3 Div. 469.)
    SIMS v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 22, 1924.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(l9)— Corpus de-licti in prosecution for possession of still is possession of still for unlawful purpose.
    In a prosecution for possessing a still, the corpus delicti is the possession of a still for the unlawful purpose condemned by the statute.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;238(l) — Evidence held to make case for jury in prosecution for possessing a still. f
    
    In a prosecution for possessing a still, evidence as to the existence of still for unlawful purpose, coupled with other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the possession of such still, including his voluntary confession, held sufficient for the submission of the case to the jury.
    (g=?Por other cases see same topic and KEV-NUMnEit in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.
    Isaiah Sims was convicted of possessing a still, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lane & Lane, of Greenville, for appellant.
    The mere confession of defendant will not support a conviction, unless the corpus de-licti be shown by other facts or circumstances. Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444, 93 South. 460.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Edwina. Falkner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The corpus delicti in this case is the possession by some one of a still for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, and this, being shown, may be aided by the admission or confession of defendant to support a conviction. Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444, 93 South. 460.
   SAMFORD, J.

The only question involved in this case is: Should the court have given the general affirmative charge as requested by defendant? The corpus delicti in this case is the possession of a still for the unlawful purpose condemned by the statute. There was abundant evidence of this fact. McBroom v. State (Ala. App.) 94 South. 790. Coupling this with other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the possession, together with his voluntary confession, warranted the jury in returning a verdict of guilt.

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

Affirmed. 
      
       Ante, p. 61.