Crusoe v. State

• Decision Date: 17 April 1923
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 266.
• Citation: 19 Ala.App. 203,95 So. 918
• Parties: CRUSOE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

95 So. 918

19 Ala.App. 203

CRUSOE v. STATE.

2 Div. 266.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 17, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; S. F. Hobbs, Judge.

Robinson Crusoe was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for proper sentence.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

FOSTER J.

Robinson Crusoe was indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of a quantity of seed cotton, and from a judgment of conviction has prosecuted an appeal to this court. It is unnecessary to recite the facts in this case, inasmuch as it is the opinion of the court that, notwithstanding some conflict in the testimony, the verdict was justified by the evidence.

During the progress of the trial it became relevant to determine the probable annual yield of cotton on defendant's cotton land. On this point a witness for the state, Mr. Hillman testified in substance that he had been a farmer for 40 years, had experience every year in growing cotton on all grades and varieties of land that we have in this country and in all kinds of years, with boll weevil conditions, and without boll weevils, and that from his experience he could tell with reasonable accuracy how much cotton a given piece of land would produce in certain years; that defendant had shown witness all the land he, defendant, had in cotton during that year (1921); that it was from 14 to 16 acres that he walked over the land; that the cotton had been picked, and the burrs were still on the stalks; that he examined the land and the stalks in the field. After this qualification, counsel for the state asked this question "How much cotton in your opinion did it make last year?" To this question defendant objected, first, because witness had not shown himself an expert; and, second, because it was not shown that witness had been shown all of the land cultivated by the defendant. The court overruled the objection and permitted the witness for the state, was asked the same questions as were propounded to the witness Hillman. The same rulings were made by the court. Abstractly stated the question is:

"May one skilled in farming, who has had adequate opportunities for observation, be permitted to state the probable yield of a known tract of land?"

The case of Baker v. Cotney, 142 Ala. 566, 38 So. 131 is controlling on this question in this jurisdiction. In that case it is said: "Plaintiff examined witness Ham, who testified upon cross-examination: 'I saw the land that was in cotton on the Allen place last year. I am a farmer, raised on the farm, have been cultivating cotton all my...