Court Opinion

ID: 9448302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:30:45.907298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:22.183885
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with that part of the opinion that affirms the judgment of the trial court as to Knight and Johns and also as to that part that reverses as to appellants Barrett and Gainey. As to the judgment of conviction of William Pren*679tis Tucker I respectfully dissent. Two witnesses, including Hodge, one of the primary participants in the agreement to construct and operate the stills, positively testified that Tucker participated in the building of the stills in a shed on Hodge’s property. I think the fact that there was ambiguous testimony which at most might have authorized the jury to find an alibi for Tucker does not warrant our holding that a jury did not have before it sufficient evidence from which it could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Tucker participated in the conspiracy.
I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction as to Tucker as well as Knight and Johns.