Broadfoot v. State, 8 Div. 80

• Decision Date: 19 March 1935
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 80
• Citation: Broadfoot v. State, 26 Ala.App. 369, 160 So. 269 (Ala. App. 1935)
• Parties: BROADFOOT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

160 So. 269

26 Ala.App. 369

BROADFOOT v. STATE.

8 Div. 80

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 19, 1935

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr. Judge.

Howard Broadfoot was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Raymond Murphy, of Florence, for appellant.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The storehouse of Brothers & Co., Inc., was burglarized, and from the storehouse was stolen a quantity of sugar in bags and a lot of cigarettes. The most of the sugar and some of the cigarettes were found the following night in the basement of a house belonging to one Berry, and located in the same city where the burglary took place. There was evidence tending to identify the stolen property, and there was abundant evidence tending to prove the defendant's connection with the possession and that he knew it to have been stolen. Some of this evidence was circumstantial, but was so clear and convincing that we entertain no doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion of the jury as to defendant's guilt. For the above reasons, the general charge as requested by defendant was properly refused.

Defendant's refused charge 2 was fully covered by written charges given at the request of defendant and by the general charge of the court.

Defendant moved the court to exclude the testimony as to the finding of the cigarettes, because there were fewer cigarettes found than were stolen. The fact that all of the stolen goods were not found in defendant's possession would not constitute such a variance as would entitle defendant to a verdict. Martin v. State, 125 Ala. 64, 28 So. 92; Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57.

Defendant moved to exclude the answer...