Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 731
Citation | 291 Ala. 352,280 So.2d 814 |
Decision Date | 07 September 1972 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 731 |
Parties | In re James BUCKLES v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Mobile County, Bowling, 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 instruction regarding unexplained possession of recently stolen property was not reversibly erroneous.
Judgment of Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and case remanded to that court.
On remand, 50 Ala.App. 552, 280 So.2d 820, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded.
On rehearing of a petition for certiorari, 291 Ala. 352, the Supreme Court set aside its original opinion, set aside judgment, and affirmed judgment of Court of Criminal Appeals.
William J. Baxley, Atty.Gen., and Don C. Dickert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Thomas M. Haas, J.D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for respondent.
We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review and reverse a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals wherein that court held that when a defendant is being tried on charges of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property, in violation of Tit. 14, § 338, Code of Alabama, 1940, it is misleading and reversible error for the trial court to orally charge the jury in the following manner:
The opinion of the lower court does not explain in what particulars the charge was erroneous and misleading. The court's authority appears to be Reed v. State, 47 Ala.App. 617, 259 So.2d 304. In that case the appellant had been convicted of buying and receiving stolen property. The court held it was error for the trial court to have given this charge:
" "
The above charge may also be criticized because it omits "recently" or some other equivalent word and also omits "unexplained," in order to describe the defendant's possession.
The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that in Boyd v. State, 150 Ala. 101, 43 So. 204, this court said:
* * * "
While the court used the phrase "a presumption of guilt," our later cases use the term, "inference of guilt."
We think on authority of Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220, Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142, and Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261, there was no error in charging the jury as the trial court did in the instant case.
In Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220, the appellant appealed his larceny conviction and there we stated:
* * * "Id. at 222.
The unexplained possession, described in the above statement of law, looks to and calls on the possessor for an explanation of how he came by the recently stolen goods, for otherwise, an inference arises out of an incriminating circumstance from which the accused may be found guilty and convicted. That is the clear meaning of this statement. This court in Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 39, 18 So. 142, another case involving a larceny conviction, reiterated the rule of Underwood, supra. We said:
* * * "
However the following statement is also found in Orr, supra, at 38-39, 18 So. at 143:
" * * * It is only in cases where the possession is 'recent' after the larceny, that the law authorizes a presumption of guilt. * * * "
Such inconsistency prompted Chief Justice Livingston to write in Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 407, 60 So.2d 261, 262:
" * * * It seems that care has not been taken in all the cases to differentiate a presumption of guilt arising from that situation [the unexplained possession of goods recently stolen] and an inference which the jury is justified in drawing on account of it. * * * "
In Hale v. State, 45 Ala.App. 97, 225 So.2d 787, the court's opinion quotes Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, as follows:
" "
Thus, the jury is not required to apply a presumption of guilt from the incriminating evidence. Guilt remains an issue, but the jury is free to draw an inference of complicity in the crime from the evidence of unexplained possession of recently stolen property. It is a permissible evidentiary rule that comes into operation after the state produces the required proof.
The appellant in Coats v. State, supra, was convicted of possessing a still. During his argument, the prosecution asked the jury, " 'Has his possession of that part of the still been explained to you sufficiently?' " In discussing the propriety of the solicitor's remark, this court observed that Tit. 29, § 132, Code of Alabama, 1940, makes the unexplained possession of a still prima facie evidence of a violation of law. The court, in writing to that point said:
* * * " (Emphasis added.) Coats, supra, 257 Ala. at 407, 60 So.2d at 261-262.
The only reasonable conclusion to be deduced from the above examination of our cases is that they stand for the proposition that, in a larceny case, when the corpus delicti has been established, and it has been shown that the accused was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eldridge v. State
...415 So.2d 1190 ... Earnest ELDRIDGE ... 4 Div. 943 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... March 23, 1982 ... Section 13A-8-16(a) ... The inference 1 of guilty knowledge which may be drawn from the unexplained possession of ... 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 ... ...
-
Goodman v. State
...401 So.2d 208 ... Carolyn GOODMAN ... STATE of Alabama ... 3 Div. 272 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... April 21, 1981 ... was for a first degree offense, the stolen property allegedly worth $1,500.00. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of "second degree receiving ... goods. Stanley v. State, 46 Ala.App. 542, 245 So.2d 827 ... "In Buckles (Buckles v. State, 291 Ala. 352, 280 So.2d 814 (1972).), supra, our ... ...
-
Sankey v. State
...568 So.2d 366 ... Melvin SANKEY ... 3 Div. 221 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... March 30, 1990 ... value of the stolen car which he was convicted of receiving exceeded $1,000.00, as required by § 13A-8-17(a), Code of Alabama (1975). In ... Buckles v. State, 291 Ala. 352, 280 So.2d 814 (1972); Eldridge, 415 So.2d at ... State, 360 So.2d 728 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 731 (Ala.1978). This Court, however, distinguishes Ogle and the other cited ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...497 So.2d 600 ... Larry John JOHNSON ... 6 Div". 53 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... Oct. 14, 1986 ... \xC2" ... of justice, and arrive at a true verdict in the case." Buckles v. State, 291 Ala. 352, 355, 280 So.2d 814 (1972) ... The ... ...