Boice v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 230 |
| Citation | 10 Ala.App. 100,65 So. 83 |
| Parties | BOICE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Dick Boise, alias, etc., was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.
John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is well settled in this state that a single act, or occasional acts, not indicating a prearranged continuation of the illicit conduct, would not be a living together within the meaning of the statute (Code, § 6221), but the nature of the offense is such that it is difficult of direct proof, and on this account it has been held that when acts and complicating circumstances are proved, it becomes largely a question for the jury to determine whether there was in fact such continuation as amounted to a living together, or the equivalent, a mutual guilty consent, express, or that can be reasonably implied from the facts proven, for such continuation. Bodiford v. State, 86 Ala. 67, 5 So 559, 11 Am.St.Rep. 20. Considered by this established rule, the evidence in this case was ample to sustain a conviction, as there was not only evidence of circumstances tending to show the guilt of the defendant as charged in the indictment, but the direct testimony of the woman with whom the defendant was charged with living in adultery, to the effect that within the punishable period the defendant had several times had sexual intercourse with her, and that the defendant was the father of her illegitimate child. In Walker v. State, 104 Ala. 56, [d] it was held to be a question for the jury under the facts and circumstances shown in that case, to say whether or not the state or condition of cohabitation existed, that would be a violation of the statute, although it was not shown by any direct testimony that there had been any acts or act of sexual intercourse between the parties. To the same effect is the holding in many other cases.
The action of the court in allowing the state after closing its case to recall the witness Mary Lang, and to re-examine her as to the commission of the offense having been within the jurisdiction of the court, was a matter within the trial court's discretion, not reviewable here. Granison v. State, 117 Ala. 22, 23 So. 146; Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999.
After this witness was permitted to testify on re-examination there was certainly sufficient evidence before the court having a tendency to show that, during the punishable period, the defendant had, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, had adulterous relations with the woman Lang; and the court was not in error in refusing to exclude the evidence and direct a verdict for the defendant on his motion. Besides, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colston v. State
...can be denied or allowed within the discretion of the trial judge. Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999 (1913); Boice v. State, 10 Ala.App. 100, 65 So. 83 (1914); Miller v. State, 39 Ala.App. 584, 105 So.2d 711 In Breedlove v. State, 44 Ala.App. 191, 204 So.2d 836, (1967) this Court ......
-
Miller v. State, 4 Div. 374
...case after it has rested is a matter within the trial judge's discretion, Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999, Boice v. State, 10 Ala.App. 100, 65 So. 83. We have carefully reviewed the entire record agreeably with the prescription of Code 1940, T. 15, § 389, and are at the conclusi......
-
Powell v. State
...even though one act or occasional acts are not punishable under the law of this state. Smith v. State, 39 Ala. 554; Boice v. State, 10 Ala.App. 100, 65 So. 83; Lawson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 343, 33 So.2d 388; Wilson v. State, 34 Ala.App. 219, 39 So.2d If adultery is a crime involving moral t......
-
Breedlove v. State, 7 Div. 890
...case after it has rested is a matter within the trial judge's discretion, Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999; Boice v. State, 10 Ala.App. 100, 65 So. 83.' The courts of this State have further held that the court may, in its discretion, allow a case to be reopened by the State Afte......