Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 912. |
| Citation | 19 Ala.App. 578,99 So. 321 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dekalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Harley Bradley was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed.
C. A. Wolfes, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged the manufacture of prohibited liquors; the second count charged the possession of a still, etc. Both counts were in the words of the statute and were sufficient. There was a general verdict of guilt.
The evidence for the state was directed to showing that a still was found about a quarter of a mile from the defendant's home. A trail led from the still in the direction of defendant's house, and also in the direction of his father's (Arch Bradley's) house. The trail led by the side of defendant's pasture, crossed the fence, led through the pasture to his barn, and there was a passageway between his barn and his house. The still was of copper, of 20 or 25 gallon capacity, and there were found at the still 9 barrels of beer, some meal, a food chopper, an axe, and a syrup bucket. There was a wheelbarrow between the still and the house, and tracks on the trail leading from the still in the direction of the house. The trail led part of the way through the woods till it struck the edge of Arch Bradley's farm and around the edge of his farm along the end of the rows next to the woods, the main trail leading up to defendant's house. The still had been operated. The defendant was not at the still when the officers raided it. About 6 or 8 feet from the trail leading to defendant's house the officers found a barrel and a thumper keg (used to condense steam in the place of a still worm), one on the inside of defendant's pasture and one on the outside. Inside defendant's pasture the officers found 8 1/2 gallons of whisky in jars and a jug. The trail from the still separated into two-one leading to Arch Bradley's house the other to defendant's house. The wheelbarrow tracks led to Arch Bradley's house.
Troy Harcrow and Tom Lyons, witnesses for the state, were found by the raiding officers at the still. Harcow had some meal, and Lyons had some wood.
Troy Harcrow and Tom Lyons testified that the defendant sent them to the still that morning to work about an hour, that the defendant worked at the still the day before, stirring a vat of beer with a mop, and that defendant said the still was his (belonged to them-meaning him and his father). When the officers came up Harcrow and Lyons ran. Harcrow and Lyons testified that Arch Bradley told them to take some meal to the still the evening before the raid. Lyons testified that he and the defendant built the furnace and that they "put the beer up"-about 400 gallons. Harcrow and Lyons were indicted for the same offense. There was evidence for the defendant that the trail was there when he moved on the place. There was evidence of the good character of the defendant.
The main insistence of counsel for defendant is that the testimony of Harcrow and Lyons (accomplices in the crime) is not sufficiently corroborated by other proven facts and circumstances material to the issue, to justify a conviction of the defendant.
It has always been considered dangerous to convict a defendant of a high crime on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Emphasizing this sentiment, our statute was passed long ago declaring that a defendant cannot be convicted of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. This has been brought down into the Code of 1907 as section 7897. We cite a few of the numerous decisions of our Supreme Court in which evidence has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
... ... evidence is additional evidence tending to prove similar ... facts or facts tending to produce the same result as facts ... already given in evidence ... Cyclopedia ... of Law and Procedure; 19 Neb. 330, 50 P. Rep. 257; Slater ... v. State, 135 S.E. 408; Bradley v. State, 99 ... So. 321; Varner's Executors v. White, 140 S.E ... 128, 130; State v. Lassiter, 131 S.E. 577; Romes ... v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W. 669; Ferguson v. State, 71 ... Miss. 817 ... Evidence ... which fairly tends to connect the defendant with the ... commission of the ... ...
-
Slayton v. State
... ... Under ... our decisions and the construction placed upon section 5635, ... supra, corroboration means to strengthen, not necessarily the ... proof of any particular fact to which an accomplice has ... testified, but the probative, criminating force of his ... testimony. Bradley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 578, 99 So ... In the ... case of Cobb v. State, 20 Ala.App. 3, 100 So. 463, ... 464, this court said: "Wilson [the accomplice and party ... hired to burn a storehouse] testified that defendant employed ... him, at the price of $50, to burn the store, telling ... ...
-
Hubbard v. State
...value as to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Brown et al. v. State, 31 Ala.App. 529, 19 So.2d 88; Bradley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 578, 99 So. 321; Morris v. State, 25 Ala.App. 156, 142 So. Justice Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court in Skumro v. State, 234 Ala. 4, 170......
-
Hodge v. State
... ... accomplice. It is not necessary that it tends to establish or ... prove the exact facts stated by the accomplice. It must be ... sufficient and of such probative value, however, to connect ... the defendant with the commission of the crime.' We cited ... Bradley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 578, 99 So. 321, and ... Morris v. State, 25 Ala.App. 156, 142 So. 592 ... It has ... been consistently held that evidence necessary to corroborate ... an accomplice need not in itself be sufficient to sustain a ... conviction. Dykes v. State, 30 Ala.App. 129, ... ...