Brown v. State, 6 Div. 253
| Decision Date | 14 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 253 |
| Citation | 28 Ala.App. 61,179 So. 261 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1938
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.
Gadford Brown was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Brown v. State (6 Div 273) 179 So. 262.
J.B Powell, of Jasper, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant and Arthur Lawrence were jointly indicted by the grand jury of Walker county on a charge of grand larceny and burglary. The indictment was in two counts; the first count charging grand larceny, and the second count charging burglary.
The defendant Arthur Lawrence pleaded guilty, under the first count of the indictment, to petit larceny, and judgment and sentence were duly entered in his case, from which there is no appeal here.
The appellant was placed on trial on the indictment, pleaded not guilty, and, after hearing the evidence and the charge of the court, the jury returned a verdict of guilty under the second count of the indictment.
This eliminates all questions applicable only to the first count.
The evidence for the State tends to prove the corpus delicti as alleged, to wit: The breaking and entering, with the intent to steal, the storehouse of Lofton Scott, etc.
The evidence for the State tends to prove that these two defendants, together with two young women, were out in an automobile riding around the country visiting roadhouses barbecue stands, and lying out in the woods all night; that, at 2 o'clock in the morning the battery in the car in which they were riding failed to operate, and these two young men went down to the storehouse of Scott's, broke in the window and took a new battery, carried it back to the car, took the new cells out of the new battery and put them in the case of the old battery, leaving the case to the new battery where the change was made, and where it was found by the officers.
At the all night filling station and barbecue stand, where the parties were gathered at 2 o'clock in the morning, were other couples, young men and young women, all of whom, according to the testimony of the State's witnesses, were men and women of bad character.
After the arrest of the two defendants charged with this crime Lawrence made a full confession describing how the crime was committed and implicating this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...587, 172 So.2d 796: 'Another accomplice's testimony may be cumulative but cannot be corroborative. * * *' See also Brown v. State, 28 Ala.App. 61, 179 So. 261; Bailey v. State, 30 Ala.App. 374, 8 So.2d 202; Herd v. State, 31 Ala.App. 116, 13 So.2d 775; Fuller v. State, 34 Ala.App. 211, 39 S......
-
Sexton v. State, 4 Div. 382.
... ... In the ... case of Munkers v. State, 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357, ... [180 So. 730.] the Supreme Court, in holding that Moncus and Munkers were ... not ... ...
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 273
...Gadford Brown for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Brown v. State, 179 So. 261. denied. V.H. Carmichael, of Jasper, for petitioner. A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State. FOSTER, Justice. There is no principl......