Court Opinion

ID: 9824985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:51:08.688127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:18.539219
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The appellant shows by certified copies of the verdict of the jury and the bench notes that he was convicted under count 1 of the indictment, charging the manufacture of prohibited liquors, and not under count 2, ■charging the possession of a still shown by the judgment in the record. The judgment is not shown to have been amended in the circuit court to conform to the bench notes. However, if the judgment were amended so ■as to show a conviction of the defendant under the first count, it would avail him nothing. We have carefully read the evidence, and find that there was ample evidence to justify a conviction under the first count. Glaze v. State, ante, p. 7, 100 So. 629; Ex parte Glaze, 211 Ala. 418, 100 So. 630.
Refused charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 relate to count 2, charging the possession of a still. These charges were discussed in the original opinion.
Refused charge 13 is the affirmative charge for the defendant under count 1 of the indictment.
Refused charges 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are the affirmative charges for the defendant.
As there was ample evidence to justify a conviction under both counts of the indictment, the court will not be put in error for refusing the general affirmative charge for the defendant.
To grant the writ of certiorari,as prayed for would not benefit the defendant, as a judgment of conviction under either count must be affirmed. The writ is denied, and the application for rehearing overruled.
Application overruled.