Legal Opinion

Mimms v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided November 15, 1927No. 2 Div. 392Published

1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.

The court in his general charge instructed the jury:

“If the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the parts of the still1 or certain parts as testified to by the witnesses, and that they are parts of a still, and they are not satisfactorily explained, then you should find the defendant guilty.”

The defendant excepted to this part of the court’s charge. The “parts” testified to by the witnesses were a smoked tin lard can in defendant’s yard, a tin top with a hole in it in defendant’s kitchen, and a trough with a hole in each end just outside of defendant’s yard. It…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Maisel v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Lindsey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  3. Pate v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
  4. Gamble v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  5. Scott v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API