Burks v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 1898 |
| Citation | 23 So. 530,117 Ala. 148 |
| Parties | BURKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Macon county court; W. H. Hurt, Judge.
George B. Burks was convicted of trespass after warning, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The last charge, which was referred to in the opinion, is as follows: "The only foundation for a verdict of guilty in this case is that the entire jury shall believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that the defendants are guilty as charged, to the exclusion of every possibility of their innocence and reasonable doubt of their guilt; and if the prosecution has failed to furnish such measure of proof, and to impress the minds of the jury with such belief of their guilt, they should find them not guilty."
E. P Morrissett, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted for the offense of trespass after warning. The defendant and prosecutor were tenants respectively, of coterminous landowners. The trespass complained of, if committed, was upon a narrow strip of land adjacent to the dividing line. The evidence showed that Mrs Walker, the landlord of the prosecutor, had been in possession of the strip of land, as a part of section 32, for many years, and a portion of it was inclosed by a fence. The county surveyor ran out the lines between the parties, and located the section line a short space inside of the inclosure. The trespass consisted in the removal of the fence by the defendant to the line located by the surveyor, and the taking of actual possession by the defendant of the strip lying between the line fixed by the surveyor, and where the fence originally was erected, and which strip of land had been in the actual possession of Mrs. Walker for 20 years, and was then, when the fence was removed, in the actual possession of her tenant. The questions presented are whether it was competent for the defendant to introduce evidence of these facts in defense of the prosecution.
We are of opinion that the evidence was incompetent. The proof showed that the prosecutor was in actual possession, claiming under his lease from Mrs. Walker. The case is similar to that of Lawson v. State, 100 Ala. 7, 14 So. 870, where it was held that, if the prosecutor was in actual possession of the land trespassed upon, it is no defense that the defendant had a superior legal title. See Sherman v. State, 105 Ala. 115, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackmon v. State
...necessary for a conviction that the defendant be proved guilty to the "exclusion of every possibility of innocence."' Burks v. State, 117 Ala. 148, 23 So. 530 (1898). `The facts and circumstances in evidence, if dissevered and disconnected, may be weak and inconclusive; but their probative ......
-
Cox v. State
...necessary for a conviction that the defendant be proved guilty to the "exclusion of every possibility of innocence." ' Burks v. State, 117 Ala. 148, 23 So. 530 (1898). 'The facts and circumstances in evidence, if dissevered and disconnected, may be weak and inconclusive; but their probative......
-
Russell v. State, CR–10–1910
...necessary for a conviction that the defendant be proved guilty to the "exclusion of every possibility of innocence." ’ Burks v. State, 117 Ala. 148, 23 So. 530 (1898). ‘The facts and circumstances in evidence, if dissevered and disconnected, may be weak and inconclusive; but their probative......
-
Pilley v. State
...necessary for a conviction that the defendant be proved guilty to the `exclusion of every possibility of innocence.'" Burks v. State, 117 Ala. 148, 23 So. 530 (1898). "The facts and circumstances in evidence, if dissevered and disconnected, may be weak and inconclusive; but their probative ......