Dodson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1889
• Citation: 86 Ala. 60,5 So. 485
• Parties: DODSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So. 485

86 Ala. 60

DODSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 25, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; LEROY F. BOX. Judge.

Indictment charging that defendant, Geroge Dodson, "broke into and entered the dwelling-house of John Bush, with the intent to steal." On the trial John Bush testified, on the part of the state, that before leaving his house, at a certain time he counted his money, put it into a sack, and placed it in his trunk; that in the evening, when he returned home, he found that some one had stolen his bag of money; and that defendant had seen him two or three days before put the money in his trunk. The witness further testified that shortly afterwards witness, with one or two others, arrested defendant without a warrant. No threats were made to defendant, or inducements held out to him, to get him to confess; but defendant then told witness that he had his money, and sent one Jim Blake to get part of it. Cal Dobbins another witness for the state, testified, in substance, as follows: Witness was with John Bush when defendant was arrested. They had no warrant for him. Defendant, when arrested, asked witness what would be the best thing for him to do; and witness replied "that, if he got the money it would be best for him to tell all about it, but not to own it if he did not get the money; that he ought not to own it if he was not guilty." Defendant had on a pair of new shoes, and a new hat. Nothing was said to him by way of threats or inducements calculated to make him confess the crime, or the taking of the money. Witness was then asked, on cross-examination by defendant's counsel, "what kind of shoes defendant had on," and answered that defendant said they cost $1.75. The court then permitted witness to be asked, on re-examination in chief, all that was said by defendant in that conversation; and he answered that defendant, without being questioned, began the conversation and said that he had Bush's money, and told them what he had done with it; that he had bought a pair of shoes for $1.75, a hat for $1.50, etc. Defendant moved to exclude this confession, on the ground that it was involuntary, but it was admitted, and defendant excepted. The court had before this declined to admit the confession, and based its ruling, in this instance, on the fact that, on cross-examination of the witness, in answer to a question by defendant's counsel, the witness had said that the defendant told him the shoes cost him $1.75; the court holding that the state was entitled to call out the whole of the conversation, the defendant having called out a part of it. Witness further testified that defendant had not said anything to him about the breaking of the house. Jim Blake testified that he was present when defendant was arrested; that defendant sent him to get $10, which he said was part of the money stolen. Bush, being recalled, testified, further, that he asked defendant where the little sack containing his money was; that defendant said he had it, and turned it over to witness; and said witness swore that the said sack so turned over to him by the defendant was the same sack which he put in his trunk with the money in it, but could not swear that the $10 turned over to him was the same money, though it was silver money of the same coinage. Defendant requested the following charges, which were refused: "(1) The recent possession of stolen property, unexplained, is prima facie evidence of guilt of the offense of larceny; but, even if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant had the money of John Bush in his possession, they would not be warranted in convicting him of the burglary, unless the evidence convinces them, to the exclusion...