Couch v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County ; W. W. Harralson, Judge. Walter Couch was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Charge 6, refused to the defendant, is as follows: “If the evidence proves no more than that the defendant and two others came to the beer and drank some of itj and that the defendant then examined the furnace and they all went away, you will find the defendant not guilty.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County ; W. W. Harralson, Judge. Walter Couch was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Charge 6, refused to the defendant, is as follows: “If the evidence proves no more than that the defendant and two others came to the beer and drank some of itj and that the defendant then examined the furnace and they all went away, you will find the defendant not guilty.” The question as to the illegality of the grand jury is raised and discussed, hut in view of the opinion that discussion is not here set out. Counsel also discuss the evidence, with…
1Opinion of the CourtMerritt, J.
The appellant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and sentenced to the iicnitentiary for a term of not less than one year and three months and not more than two years. The questions raised as to the illegality of the grand jury that found and returned the indictment have been decided adversely^ to the contention of .the appellant in the case of Bob Lang v. State, 206 Ala. 58, 89 South. 166, and ante. p. 88, 69 South. 164.
[1, 2] Refused written charge 6 was substantially covered by given written charge 2 and the court’s oral charge. Aside from this, we think the charge is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lang v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
3Cited by2 opinions
- Patterson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Couch v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921