Case ID: ala-app_24/html/0192-01.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

(132 So. 600)
    BOWLIN v. STATE.
    7 Div. 792.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 24, 1931.
    
      Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

Without setting out the evidence in detail, but whjch we have read and carefully considered, we conclude that on the evidence adduced the question of the guilt or innocence was properly submitted to the jury. As we have frequently said, the mere presence of a defendant at or near a whisky still will not justify a conviction. But, if there be added to such presence any act of defendant showing, or tending to show', dominion over the still, the question becomes one for the jury.

This case, however, must be reversed for the error of the trial court in refusing to give written charge A. Almost, if not quite, the identical question was presented in Layton v. State, 22 Ala. App. 523, 117 So. 610.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.