Booker v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1907 |
| Parties | BOOKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; M. M. Baldwin, Judge.
Albert Booker was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Sumpter Lee and Frank S. Andress, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty Gen., for the State.
The indictment upon which the conviction was had contained two counts. The first charged the offense of larceny, and the second the offense of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property, etc., in violation of section 5054 of the Criminal Code of 1896. On the first trial there was a verdict of guilty by the jury on the second count, which was set aside on motion of defendant before judgment was pronounced upon it by the court. The legal effect of the verdict was to operate as an acquittal of the defendant of the larceny. Bell and Murray v. State, 48 Ala. 684, 17 Am. Rep. 40; Clifton v. State, 73 Ala. 473-477, and cases there cited. But the vacating of the verdict did not operate as an acquittal of defendant of the offense alleged in the second count. 1 Mayfield's Dig. p 490, § 12. There was, therefore, no error in the rulings of the trial court with respect to the plea of former jeopardy as originally filed. And, if error intervened with respect to the replication to the plea after amendment, it was clearly without injury, since the defendant's conviction was again upon the second count of the indictment, upon which he had never been in legal jeopardy.
It is undoubtedly true that, in order to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property, the defendant must be shown to have had a control over the property. But our statute is broader than the common-law offense, and makes the person who conceals or aids the thief in the concealment of the property stolen equally guilty with him who receives such property. Under the testimony it was open to the jury to find that a portion of the property described in the indictment was stolen; that it was received by defendant after being stolen and concealed in the woods; or that he aided in so concealing it, knowing that it was stolen. Of course, if he did not aid in concealing or did not receive it after it was stolen, he should be acquitted. In other words, if his only act with respect to the property was to accompany Jones to the place in the woods where it was deposited and left by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isbell v. State
...the presence of the stolen groceries can reasonably be inferred from his possession and control of the truck. . . .' In Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56 (1907), Chief Justice Tyson 'It is undoubtedly true that, in order to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property, the defen......
-
Milam v. State
...The offenses of larceny and of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property are punishable alike under the statute. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56. stolen property described in the indictment was destroyed in Clay County by the use of dynamite, removed some distance from its ba......
-
Murry v. State
...punishment may be had, a conviction under one count in the indictment would be an automatic acquittal under the other count. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56. See also Rogers v. State, 17 Ala.App. 175, 83 So. 359; Leonard v. State, 18 Ala.App. 427, 93 So. What we have written above b......
-
Berry v. State
...a conviction for receiving stolen property, the defendant must be shown to have had a control over the property." Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 99, 44 So. 56, 56 (1907). See also Milam v. State, 240 Ala. 314, 317, 198 So. 863, 865 (1940) ("[t]he defendant must be shown to have had control o......