Court Opinion

ID: 9825082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:03:07.908813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:23.844162
License: Public Domain

BRICKEN, P. J.
The judgment of conviction in this case was based upon the verdict of the jury wherein they found appellant guilty, under a general verdict, as charged in the indictment upon which he was tried. There were two counts to the indictment. The first charged that he did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic, etc., liquors. And the second count charged the unlawful possession of a still, etc., to be used for that purpose. Both counts were sufficient in form and substance.
The state’s testimony consisted of the evidence of the two officers who raided the still in question, and both of them testified, positively and directly, that this appellant and another man were actively engaged in the operation of the still and that upon their approach the two men engaged in its operation ran away and escaped. They identified this appellant positively and testified they saw him replenish the fire in the furnace and-assist in handling or measuring up the whisky already made or manufactured, several gallons of which were found at the still. There were also large quantities of beer, and the evidence shows that the still was complete in all details and whisky running from the worm.
This appellant, however, testified that he was not at the still but was! many miles away at the time testified to by the state’s witnesses. He also offered the testimony of oth-' er witnesses which tended to sustain the ali*271bi. This conflict in the evidence made a jury question, and rendered inapt the affirmative charge requested by defendant.
The rulings of the court upon the admission of the testimony are so clearly free from error a detailed discussion in this connection is deemed unnecessary.
The record, on page 16, shows, after the conclusion of the oral charge: “The defendant objects to that part of the oral charge wherein he says, etc.” A mere “objection” to the oral charge is not the equivalent of an exception. We therefore pretermit the insistence that error prevailed in the oral charge of the court.
This case involved a question of fact which was decided by the jury adversely to appellant. We are of the opinion that the evidence fully warranted the jury in the verdict rendered. There appears no reversible error on the trial below. The record is also regular and without error. The judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.