Buchanan v. State

• Citation: 19 So. 410,109 Ala. 7
• Parties: BUCHANAN v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 29 January 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

19 So. 410

109 Ala. 7

BUCHANAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 29, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; George E. Brewer Judge.

John Buchanan was convicted of larceny from a storehouse, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for larceny from a storehouse. After the defendant had testified as a witness in his own behalf, the state introduced a witness, who was asked "if he knew the general character of the defendant." The defendant objected to this question, on the ground that the state could not put the character of the defendant in issue. Thereupon counsel for the state informed the court that the purpose of putting the defendant's character in issue was to go only to his credibility as a witness, and for no other purpose. The court overruled the defendant's objection to the question, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. Thereupon the witness stated that he knew the general character of the defendant, and that such character was bad. The defendant objected to this answer, and moved the court to exclude it from the jury, on the ground that, if by reason of defendant's having testified as a witness in his own behalf, the state could inquire into his character, it would be limited to his character for truth and veracity, and not extended to the general character of the defendant. The court overruled the defendant's objection and motion to exclude the testimony, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The other facts pertaining to the rulings of the trial court which are reviewed on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

M. M Smith, J. A. Emory, and N. B. Spears, for appellant.

W. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HEAD J.

Indictment for larceny from a storehouse of sundry articles of merchandise, the property of John Shurbett. Shurbett testified that on February 4, 1895, there was stolen from his storehouse some $80 or $90 worth of merchandise, consisting of 10 pieces or bolts of cloth, being calico, domestic and cotton checks, 1 1/2 dozen pairs of jean pants, 1 dozen pairs of suspenders, some ladies' hose, gents' half hose, 1 dozen balls of thread, about 12 yards of elastic, several papers of pins several papers of shoe tacks, 1 dozen hair combs, 1 1/2 dozen cotton shirts, some tobacco, and a part of a sack of green coffee; that, on April 8th following, he, with one Lee, a constable, and others, went with a search warrant, to defendant's house,-about 7 or 8 miles from witness' store,-and there found 4 or 5 small children's dresses made of red-figured calico, a quilt top which contained pieces of the same kind and quality of calicoes, 1 or 2 hair combs, and 7 balls of ball thread. They broke open defendant's trunk (he being absent), and found therein 1 pair of dark gray jean pants, 2 cotton shirts, 1 red cotton handkerchief, 3 or 4 papers of shoe tacks, 3 or 4 papers of pins, 2 pairs of new suspenders, 1 pair of ladies' black hose, and 1 pair of mens' socks. One of the shirts had been worn, the other not. They also found in the house of defendant's mother, which was a few hundred yards from, and in sight of, defendant's house, a dress pattern of calico, a hair comb, and a piece of elastic. All these goods, found at both places, were produced by the witness in court, and offered in evidence by the state. There was objection to the evidence as to the goods found at defendant's mother's house, and we think the court erred in admitting it. The only further identification of these goods with the goods stolen made by the witness Shurbett was that "from the color and quality of the goods so found at the house of defendan...