Chaney v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1912 |
| Parties | CHANEY ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Green Chaney and others were convicted of grand larceny, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded as to Green Chaney. Affirmed as to each of the other defendants.
J. F Aldridge and John S. Graham, of Grove Hill, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is prosecuted by four defendants, Green Chaney, Walter Hill, Jim Williams, and Ivey McMillan. The record shows the defendants were jointly indicted and tried for grand larceny but were separately arraigned, and each pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against all of the defendants, and a separate judgment of conviction and sentence was entered by the court against each of the four defendants.
The corpus delicti was proven by witnesses not connected with the commission of the offense, and a consideration of all the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions shows sufficient corroborative testimony connecting the three defendants Walter Hill, Jim Williams, and Ivey McMillan with the commission of the offense to authorize a conviction as to them on the testimony of their accomplices, but there is no testimony that can be fairly construed as in any way connecting the defendant Green Chaney with the commission of the offense, except that given by the two accomplices who were examined in behalf of the state, and who testified to the participation of the defendants jointly with themselves in committing the crime. The uncorroborated testimony of accomplices is not sufficient to authorize the conviction of a defendant charged with a felony (Code 1907, § 7897), and the defendant Green Chaney, having requested in writing the general charge in his behalf, is entitled to a reversal of the case as to him for the court's refusal to give the charge.
There is no other error as to any of the defendants shown, and the error pointed out does not work a reversal of the case as to the other defendants.
Nor does the same rule obtain as in civil cases where there must be an assignment of errors, and errors assigned jointly by all of the appellants are disregarded where they are not prejudicial to all, and are therefore not available to some of them in matters affecting only their rights, when there has been no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 1 Div. 456
...as to only one will not work a reversal as to the others. Hall v. State, 49 Ala.App. 695, 701, 275 So.2d 374 (1973); Chaney v. State, 4 Ala.App. 89, 91, 58 So. 685 (1912). However, "[w]here error pervades the entire case, or where the rights of all parties are so intermingled that injustice......
-
Hall v. State
...rights. Error even assumed as to the codefendant would not result in a reversal as to the appellant on this appeal. Chaney v. State, 4 Ala.App. 89, 58 So. 685. The appellant contends the court erred in admitting into evidence certain exhibits. The court on objection excluded from evidence a......
-
Ford v. State
... ... knew nothing about the whisky, that it was not his ... A ... defendant may not be convicted of a felony on the evidence of ... an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending ... to connect the accused with the commission of the offense ... Code 1907, § 7897; Chaney v. State, 4 Ala.App. 90, ... 58 So. 685; Thompkins v. State, 7 Ala.App. 142, 61 ... In a ... prosecution for possession of a still, evidence that a still ... and whisky were found on the premises of the defendant, and ... warm mash from which whisky could be made, was found in his ... ...
-
Agee v. State
...As to Kitchen the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded; and as to Agee the judgment will be affirmed. Chaney et al. v. State, 4 Ala.App. 89, 58 So. 685. in part, and revered and remanded in part. ANDERSON, C.J., and MAYFIELD and GARDNER, JJ., concur. ...