Court Opinion

ID: 9825367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:46:42.365027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:45.029102
License: Public Domain

SAMFORD, J.
There was evidence tending to connect the defendant with the possession of a whisky still at the time and place charged, and hence the general charge as requested by defendant was properly refused.
Refused charge G docs not state the law correctly. A person may be in possession of personal property without ownership. The charge is obviously bad.
The court did not err in instructing the jury that:
“If the state had to depend upon direct proof in every criminal ease, it would be able to convict but very few people perhaps for violating the law.”
The foregoing is a truism.
Where there is no dispute as to what the evidence is, the trial judge may state it to the jury, but may not charge upon its effect unless requested to do so in writing. Code 1923, § 9507.
The several excerpts from the argument of the solicitor to which exceptions were reserved were within the bounds of legitimate argument.
The other exceptions reserved are not insisted upon, and are without merit.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.