Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 131
Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 131 |
Citation | 280 So.2d 810,50 Ala.App. 548 |
Parties | James BUCKLES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas M. Haas and J. D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Don C. Dickert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges the appellant with burglary in the second degree, and also buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing, certain alleged stolen property. The verdict and judgment of guilty was for buying, receiving, concealing or aiding in concealing stolen property, and the appellant received a sentence of six years imprisonment.
The evidence showed that the home of one Robert T. Platt in Mobile, Alabama, was broken into on October 19, 1968. Mr. and Mrs. Platt had been out of the City of Mobile, and upon their return discovered certain items missing from their home, including certain jewelry which was subsequently identified at trial by Mrs. Platt as belonging to her and having been missing since the date in question. On December 12, 1968, three Mobile police officers went to the home of the appellant, after having obtained a search warrant on this date. There they found the missing jewelry in a bag on a dresser.
At the conclusion of the State's case, the appellant's counsel moved to exclude the State's evidence, averring that the State failed to prove a prima facie case. From Wood v. State, 18 Ala.App. 654, 94 So. 256, we find:
We feel that the trial judge properly denied the appellant's motion. See Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 So. 806; Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417.
Appellant's counsel had filed a pretrial motion to suppress the State's evidence based upon an alleged illegal search and seizure. Appellant's counsel contends the affidavit and warrant are deficient when measured by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637. The challenged affidavit in the search warrant reads as follows:
'AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT
'STATE OF ALABAMA
COUNTY OF MOBILE
'Before me, C. S. White-Spunner, Jr., Recorder of the City of Mobile, Alabama, personally appeared Ralph L. Jordan who being duly sworn deposes and says:
'That he (has reason to believe) that (on the premises known as) 859 South Broad Street in the City of Mobile, Alabama, there is now being concealed certain property, namely (here describe property)
'1--Short Wave Police Radio
'2--Money Sacks with Top-Dollar identifying name
'2--Keys
'1--Gold Pendant Watch
'Miscellaneous Old Coins
'which are (here give alleged grounds for search and seizure.) Stolen property illegally possessed or concealed, and evidence of commission of felonies. And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows:
'I am Sgt. Ralph L. Jordan of the Mobile, Alabama Police Department. Records of said department reflect that a burglary was reported to have been committed of the premises at 631 Glenwood Street, Mobile, Alabama, on October 22, 1968 and that a short wave police radio was stolen therefrom. Records of said department reflect that a burglary was reported to have been committed of the Top-Dollar Store at 966 Michigan Avenue, Mobile Alabama, from September 21 to September 23, 1968, and that two money sacks with Top Dollar identifying name was stolen therefrom. Records of said department reflect that a burglary was reported to have been committed of the premises at 2200 Riverside Drive, Mobile, Alabama from October 19, 1968 to October 20, 1968, and that a Gold Pendant Watch was stolen therefrom. Records of said department reflect that a burglary was reported to have been committed of the Top Dollar Store at 2996 Springhill Avenue, on September 30, 1968. I talked this day with a person who has previously furnished to me information concerning a great number of other cases, which information in each instance has proven to be reliable, and I was informed by him that he has seen, within the last 10 days, the above described property in the house at 859 South Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama. This person stated that the radio seen was stolen from 631 Glenwood Street, Mobile, Alabama; that the two money sacks were stolen from the Top Dollar Store at 966 Michigan Avenue, Mobile Alabama; that the Gold Pendant Watch was stolen from 2200 Riverside Drive, Mobile, Alabama. He further stated that the entries in each of the Top Dollar burglaries were made with keys which he has seen at 859 South Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama. He also stated he has seen at this address miscellaneous old coins known to him to have been stolen in numerous burglaries in Mobile, Alabama with in the past 2 several months.
'Ralph L. Jordan
Signature of Affiant
' _ _
'Official Title, if any.
'Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence this 12 day of December, 1968.
'C. S. White-Spunner, Jr.
Judge of Municipal Court,
City of Mobile Alabama'
We are of the opinion that this affidavit and warrant is legally sufficient when tested by Aguilar and Spinelli standards. Clenney v. State, 281 Ala. 9, 198 So.2d 293; Myrick v. State, 45 Ala.App. 162, 227 So.2d 448; Davis v. State, 46 Ala.App. 45, 237 So.2d 635, affirmed 286 Ala. 117, 237 So.2d 640.
In the trial court's oral charge, we find as follows:
'Now, we have another statement in 36 Ala.App. 703 (63 So.2d 289), Hoggle v. State, which may be somewhat less involved; Judge Carr states that principle in this manner: 'It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that recent possession of stolen property by the accused places upon him the burden of explaining this possession and if he fails to make a reasonable explanation; an inference of guilt may support a conviction.'
We deem the above misleading and erroneous.
The leading case on the question of unexplained recent possession of stolen goods is orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142. From Orr we find:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eldridge v. State
...78, 16 So. 82 (1893). This evidentiary rule has been recognized by the Supreme Court of this state as "sound law." Buckles v. State, 291 Ala. 352, 356, 280 So.2d 814 (1972). The doctrine is of "crucial" importance in "bringing about the conviction and punishment of guilty possessors of stol......
-
Neugent v. State
...So.2d 771, cert. denied 293 Ala. 752, 299 So.2d 778 (1974); Russell v. State, 53 Ala.App. 447, 301 So.2d 214 (1974); Buckles v. State, 50 Ala.App. 548, 280 So.2d 810 (1972). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Acosta, 501 F.2d 1330 (1974), held an affidavit to b......
-
Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 731
...J., of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property, and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 50 Ala.App. 548, 280 So.2d 810, reversed and remanded, and the State's petition for certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, McCall, J., held that the challenged ......
-
Carpenter v. State
...280 So.2d 804 ... 50 Ala.App. 543 ... Andrew L. CARPENTER ... 8 Div. 288 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... May 15, 1973 ... ...