Churchwell v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1898 |
| Citation | 117 Ala. 124,23 So. 72 |
| Parties | CHURCHWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county; J. W. Foster, Judge.
Webb Churchwell was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
The appellant was tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Webb Churchwell feloniously took and carried away from the dwelling house of Sophie Terry, one trunk, of the value of two dollars, the personal property of Sophie Terry, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." To this indictment the defendant demurred, upon the ground that the property alleged to have been stolen was not sufficiently described therein. This demurrer was overruled and the defendant duly excepted.
The facts of the case and the rulings of the court upon the evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give the same as asked: "If any witness testifying has been impeached then the jury may disregard the entire testimony of such witness, unless it be corroborated by other testimony not so impeached; and if after weighing all the testimony, and according to each part of it, such weight as it is entitled you are not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was present on the night of the alleged larceny then you should find the defendant not guilty."
W. O Mulkey, for appellant.
Wm. C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The demurrer to the indictment, on the ground that the property stolen was not sufficiently described, was properly overruled.
2. The general rule in respect to the relevancy of evidence is, that it must be confined to the points in issue.
It is not unfrequently difficult to determine when a fact is too remote to aid the jury in arriving at a proper conclusion under the issues. "But it may be said generally, that all parts of one continuous transaction, though not shown to have had any immediate connection with the offense,-the culmination of all the circumstances and facts, proximate to the consummation of the crime, which tend to shed light on the main inquiry,-are admissible." Jordan v. State, 81 Ala. 20, 1 So. 577.
Under this rule, most of the evidence offered by the state and allowed was admissible.
3. The evidence tended to show that defendant and one Spears conspired to and did commit the alleged larceny; that they believed Sophie Terry had money arising from the sale of timber cut from her own land. Sophie testified to the fact that they came to her house the afternoon of the day on the night of which they are accused of stealing her trunk; that defendant said, he desired to go over her place to buy some land, and he and Spears went off together; that they came back that evening, and defendant said that they saw lots of stumps, and she, Sophie, must have some money; and Spears said, if she would let them have $10 in gold or silver, they would let her have $20 in greenbacks. Defendant said he was the man for the greenbacks, and that Anna,-Sophie's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. State
... ... a valid charge as to them without any additional averment, ... which is omitted as to them, that a further description was ... unknown to the grand jury. Authorities last cited. Peters ... v. State, 100 Ala. 10, 14 So. 896; Churchwell v ... State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72; Thompson v ... State, 106 Ala. 67, 17 So. 512; Boyd v. State, ... 153 Ala. 41, 45 So. 591; Thomas v. State, 117 Ala ... 84, 23 So. 659; Burney v. State, 87 Ala. 80, 6 So ... 391; Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201; Reese v ... State, 90 Ala. 624, 8 So. 818 ... ...
-
Stockard v. State
...Sanderson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 216, 181 So. 506, a witness, Davis v. State, 2 Ala.App. 200, 56 So. 844, Any witness, Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72. A witness for the state, Creel v. State, 23 Ala.App. 241, 124 So. 507. The charge here is confusing. It refers to the witness. ......
-
Jackson v. State
...should have been given. Similar charges have been passed upon by this court, and pronounced good, in the following cases: Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72; Burton v. State, 115 Ala. 1, 22 So. 585; A. S. R. R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 So. 303, 30 Am. St. Rep. 28. For the err......
-
Williams v. State
... ... 997.] ... were a part of the res gestæ of the occurrence on the ... occasion of the homicide. Indeed, all the details of what ... occurred on that occasion were entirely competent as ... constituting one continuance transaction. Collins v ... State, 138 Ala. 57, 34 So. 993; Churchwell v ... State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72; Smith v. State, ... 88 Ala. 73, 7 So. 52; Seams v. State, 84 Ala. 410, 4 ... The ... threats by defendant testified to by the witness Newman were ... clearly competent. Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9; ... Ford v. State, 71 Ala. 385; 4 Elliott on Ev ... ...