Hendrix was, on March 21, 1956, found guilty by a jury in the DeKalb County Court of possessing prohibited liquor and fined $75 and costs. He appeals to us saying, first, the State did not make a case; and, second, that "homebrew" cannot be judicially known as a prohibited beverage.
As to this latter proposition, it may be that the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment has diminished subsequent generations' acquaintance with the yeasty tasting, sediment laden "wash" called homebrew. However, we think the court properly left to the jury the question of whether homebrew was or was not a prohibited liquid within the scope of Code 1940, Title 29, § 93. A policeman was asked if the possessed liquid was intoxicating, to which he answered, "Yes, sir." There was a narration of the defendant's conduct which tended to bolster this opinion.
More than a scintilla of evidence is required to make a prima facie case of a crime, Anderson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 364, 6 So.2d 29; Blue v. State, 246 Ala. 73, 19 So.2d 11; Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263.
Applying the foregoing abstraction to the instant case can be done concisely by referring to the briefs. That of Hendrix states the facts of the case as follows:
The Attorney General's brief reads:
Since we distinguish this case factually from Wright v. State, 37 Ala.App. 689, 74 So.2d 727, it follows that, after the State adduced evidence that homebrew is intoxicating, there was presented a question solely and properly within the province of the jury.
No error appears in the record; accordingly the judgment below is due to be