Court Opinion

ID: 9825038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:58:13.228938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:21.604157
License: Public Domain

SAMPORD, J.
It having been shown that the officers went to defendant’s house and saw defendant pouring rum into soda water bottles from a jug, filling six bottles, and that one McSwain, who was in the room with defendant, came out of the room with three of the bottles, leaving the others; that the officers captured McSwain, and defendant ran down the railroad; that the officers went in defendant’s room and found the jug and three soda water bottles full of rum:
*287[1] It was competent for the state to prove by one of the officers that they found defendant about a month after that on Mr. Spann’s place, as tending to prove flight. The facts of this ease are entirely different from the case of Wright v. State, 1 Ala. App. 124, 55 South. 931. In this case, the last seen of defendant by the officers on the night of the crime, he was fleeing down the railroad. When he was found he was away from his home off in the country, away from Dothan, where he had been working up to that night, and had not been about his room or place of employment for about a month.
[2] It was the undisputed evidence in this ease that the whisky was in the room of the defendant, and that he was exercising .dominion or control over it, either alone or in conjunction with McSwain. Under these facts, even if McSwain was the owner, the defendant would be guilty. Therefore the several charges requested by the defendant were properly refused.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.

,§=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes