Crane v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HARALSON, J.
• Citation: Crane v. State, 111 Ala. 45, 20 So. 590 (Ala. 1896)
• Decision Date: 25 June 1896
• Parties: CRANE v. STATE.

20 So. 590

111 Ala. 45

CRANE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 25, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; George E. Brewer Judge.

George Crane was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for burglary of a storehouse owned by John Shurbert. On the trial of the cause as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the testimony for the state tended to show that the storehouse of John Shurbert in which a stock of merchandise and goods of value were kept was broken into on the night of the 4th of February, 1895 and some of the goods in said storehouse were taken therefrom. John Shurbert as a witness for the state testified to a search which was made in the house of the defendant on April 15, 1895, by himself, together with others, and that in this search they found certain articles of merchandise such as pants, dress patterns, calico and other things; and the witness further testified that the articles so found in the house of the defendant were like or corresponded with goods which were in the storehouse of Shurbert. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the articles which were found at the house were things which he had purchased in Birmingham in the first part of January, 1895, and several of the witnesses testified to having seen these articles at the defendant's house prior to the alleged burglary. The defendant also introduced evidence tending to show that on the night of the 4th of February, when the said house was alleged to have been burglarized, he was at the house of a friend early in the evening, and was at his own house the rest of the night. The rulings of the court upon the evidence, which are reviewed on this appeal, are sufficiently shown in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court in its oral charge to the jury instructed them as follows: "That it was not necessary for the defendant to have actually been present, engaged in the breaking into and entering the store of Shurbert, but if prior to the breaking the defendant conspired with others to break into and enter the store of Shurbert and steal his goods and aided and abetted them in the breaking and in pursuance thereof the said breaking and entering was done and the jury so believed beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence, that would be guilty complicity, and the defendant would be as guilty as though he had actually engaged in the breaking and entering said store in person. Although you may not be satisfied from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant did actually break into and enter the store of Shurbert and steal his goods in person, yet if you are satisfied from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that prior to such breaking and entering such store that defendant planned with others to break into and enter said store for the purpose of stealing said goods, and in conformity with and following the said plan the said breaking and entering was done, that would be such guilty complicity as would render the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and you should so find." To the giving of this portion of the court's oral charge the defendant duly excepted, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following written charges requested by him: (4) "It is the duty of the jury to believe all the testimony, but if there is such a conflict in the testimony as to leave a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant then they must acquit." (3) "In considering the evidence it is the duty of the jury to weigh and construe all the evidence so as to make all the witnesses speak the truth, but if there be an irreconcilable conflict of the testimony, then it becomes the duty of the jury to give credit to those witnesses who had the best means of knowing about the facts of which they testified." (2) "Before the jury can convict the defendant under the evidence in this case, they must find from the evidence, to a moral certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt that George Crain, with intent to steal, broke into and entered the store of John Shurbert, in which goods and merchandise, clothing calico, shoes, tobacco, things of value were kept for use sale, or deposit, and that such offense was committed in St. Clair county, and unless the evidence so satisfies the jury they must acquit the defendant." (22) "There may be a reasonable doubt in the minds of...