Opinion
6 Div. 96.
January 12, 1932. Rehearing Denied March 22, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division; Gardner Goodwyn, Judge.
R. L. Speagle was convicted of unlawfully transporting prohibited liquors in quantities of five gallons or more, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Speagle v. State, 224 Ala. 522, 140 So. 883.
Defendant excepted to the following portion of the oral charge: "Insofar as the administration of the law is concerned, justice is largely laid in the jury box. Whenever a jury renders a false verdict, that is, one that is palpably contrary to all credible evidence in a case, such verdict has a tendency to create disrespect for law, for the courts and for the Juries."
Ross, Bumgardner, Ross Ross, of Bessemer, for appellant.
To require defendant to answer the question whether he was in the liquor business was prejudicial to his rights. Pointer v. State, 24 Ala. App. 23, 129 So. 787; Brasher v. State, 22 Ala. App. 79, 112 So. 535; Eden v. State, 24 Ala. App. 37, 129 So. 797. The excepted to portion of the oral charge was erroneous. It is not within the province of the court to make any statement to the jury as to what the credible evidence in the case is. There was no foundation for such charge from the evidence or the law. Haithcock v. State, 23 Ala. App. 460, 126 So. 890.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. Seay Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The question to the defendant whether he was in the liquor business was rendered harmless by his answer. Murray v. State, 17 Ala. App. 253, 84 So. 393; Locklear v. State, 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 712; Huston v. State, 21 Ala. App. 472, 109 So. 384. That part of the oral charge to which defendant excepted was clearly correct, especially when read in connection with the remainder of the charge.
Appellant, having taken the stand and testified in his own behalf, was asked, over his objection, by the state, on cross-examination, whether or not he was "in the liquor business." He answered that he was not.
So, waiving any other consideration, his "answer" cured any error there might have been in permitting the question to be asked him. See Murray v. State, 17 Ala. App. 253, 84 So. 393.
The portion of the oral charge of the court, to which exception was reserved, seems to us to be true and correct. If it should be deemed by appellant abstract in his case, we are unable to see how it could have injured him legally.
We find nowhere prejudicial error, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.