Bates v. State
| Citation | 44 So. 695,152 Ala. 77 |
| Parties | BATES v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 02 July 1907 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cleburne County Court; T. A. Johnson, Judge.
B. B Bates was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The original affidavit was in the following language: Warrant was issued upon this affidavit and served upon defendant. The defendant moved to quash the affidavit on which the prosecution was based on numerous grounds not necessary to be set out. Demurrers were filed as follows:
On motion of the solicitor the following amended affidavit was substituted for the original affidavit: This affidavit was signed by Amanda Bennefield, and sworn to and subscribed. The same motions and demurrers were interposed to the amended affidavit. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
The following charges were refused to the defendant: (1) The general affirmative charge. (5) "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you believe from the evidence that one of the chickens alleged to have been stolen was the property of some one else, and not Amanda Bennefield's chicken then you must find the defendant not guilty."
Burton & McMahon and R. L. Evans, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny. The original affidavit was amended, and the trial was on said amended affidavit. Such amendment is authorized by law. Gandy v. State, 81 Ala. 68, 1 So. 35; Simpson v. State, 111 Ala. 6, 20 So. 572; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 465; Perry v. State, 78 Ala. 22. This being true, it is immaterial whether the original affidavit was sufficient, and the rulings of the court in regard to that affidavit do not constitute reversible error.
The amended affidavit was sufficient. Code 1896, § 4600 ; Acts 1896-97, p....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. State
... ... mentioned does not follow, and the defendant would not be ... entitled to an acquittal, although it did appear on the trial ... that the fact was known to the grand jury. 34 Cyc. 1805; ... Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342, 25 So. 182; Bates ... v. State, 152 Ala. 77, 44 So. 695; Davis v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 71, 57 So. 493; Bradford v ... State, 147 Ala. 95, 41 So. 462; Carden v ... State, 89 Ala. 130, 7 So. 801; McGehee v ... State, 52 Ala. 224; State v. Stedman, 7 Port ... 495; Lodano v. State, 25 Ala. 64; Collins v ... ...
-
Milam v. State
...in Lee v. State, 20 Ala.App. 334, 101 So. 907; certiorari denied, 212 Ala. 135, 101 So. 909; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845. In Bates v. State, 152 Ala. 77, 44 So. 695, the declared in State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845, was applied, where a defendant was charged in the indictment of stealing eight c......
-
Ex parte McElroy
... ... Homewood, Alabama, and duly convicted upon the following ... affidavit: ... [241 ... Ala. 555] "The State of Alabama ... "Jefferson ... "The ... Recorder's Court of Homewood ... "Personally ... appeared before me, the ... sufficient which designates the offense by name or some other ... phrase which in common parlance designates it. Bates v ... State, 152 Ala. [241 Ala. 556] 77, 44 So. 695; Nolen ... v. Jones, 200 Ala. 577, 76 So. 935; McDaniel v ... Cain, 159 Ala. 344, 48 So. 52; ... ...
-
Lee v. State
...to prove the larceny of $2 bills and $1 bills did not constitute a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof. Bates v. State, 152 Ala. 77, 44 So. 695; v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 846. It was competent for the state to show that one of the defendants sought to borrow money from a state's wi......