Culbreath v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 608 |
| Citation | 113 So. 465,22 Ala.App. 143 |
| Parties | CULBREATH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; James E. Horton, Judge.
Graham Culbreath was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Almon & Almon, of Albany, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence discloses a burglary committed on the storehouse of Bowling & Son about December 17th. There was about $700 worth of merchandise taken, consisting of various articles, some of which bore the private mark of Bowling & Son. Defendant was seen going in the direction of the store on the evening before the burglary in an empty wagon and going away from the store early in the morning afterwards, with his wagon loaded. Some of the stolen goods were found and identified in the possession of defendant about January 15th, following. There were some other slight circumstances tending to connect defendant with the crime. The defendant insists that he is entitled to the affirmative charge. The corpus delicti is proven without dispute and the evidence is sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that defendant was the guilty agent. Cogbill v. State, 8 Ala.App. 223, 62 So. 406.
Evidence offered by defendant that he had been in the United States navy, had crossed the ocean 16 times, and been honorably discharged, was immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings of the court in sustaining the state's demurrer to defendant's plea were free from error.
Motion was made to quash the indictment because: (1) The grand jury sent for defendant and brought him before it with handcuffs on him and required him to be sworn and make a statement in reference to his case. (2) There were other persons before the grand jury besides the solicitor and members of the grand jury, while defendant was making his statement. (3) That a deputy sheriff was present in the grand jury room while the case of defendant was being investigated. (4) The defendant was required to give evidence incriminating himself against his will about the offense for which he was indicted. (5) Defendant testified before the grand jury about the offense for which he was indicted and under duress, in that, he was brought before the grand jury by a deputy sheriff handcuffed, and the deputy remained in the grand jury room without authority of law during the examination of defendant regarding the facts of the crime with which defendant was charged. This motion was stricken on motion of the solicitor.
The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frazier
...before the grand jury, he must limit himself to the role of witness and cannot participate in questioning witnesses. Culbreath v. State, 22 Ala.App. 143, 113 So. 465 (1927); Moseley v. State, 256 Ark. 716, 510 S.W.2d 298 (1974); Herrington v. State, 98 Miss. 410, 53 So. 783 (1910); See Unit......
-
United States v. Washington
...Taylor v. Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 51, 118 S.W.2d 140 (1938); State v. Corteau, 198 Minn. 433, 270 N.W. 144 (1936); Culbreath v. State, 22 Ala.App. 143, 113 So. 465 (1927). See additional cases in Annot., Privilege Against Self-incrimination as to Testimony before Grand Jury, 38 A.L.R.2d 225, ......
-
State v. Fary
...313 Ill. 508, 145 N.E. 207 (Sup.Ct.1924); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 51, 118 S.W.2d 140 (Ct.App.1938); Culbreath v. State, 22 Ala.App. 143, 113 So. 465 (Ct.App.1927); Annotation, Self-incrimination before Grand Jury, 38 A.L.R.2d 225, 289 (1954); 29 Iowa L.Rev. 373 (1944); 49 Yale L.J. ......
-
Brown v. State
... ... State, 20 ... Ala.App. 296, 101 So. 768, this court, while passing on the ... merits of the plea, did not hold it to be proper; on the ... other hand, we have said that the proper remedy was by motion ... to quash. This we think is supported by the decisions. [22 ... Ala.App. 293] Culbreath v. State (Ala.App.) 113 So ... 465; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Sparrenberg ... v. State, 53 Ala. 481, 25 Am.Rep. 643 ... It is ... insisted that the defendants were entitled to the general ... affirmative charge, because no specific act of sexual ... intercourse had been proven ... ...