Granison v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1898 |
| Citation | 23 So. 146,117 Ala. 22 |
| Parties | GRANISON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Wilcox county; John Moore, Judge.
Granison was convicted of arson, and appealed. Affirmed.
The appellant was tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Mose Rodgers, alias Moses Rodgers, Page Granison, and Tom Grimes, alias Thomas Grimes, did willfully set fire to or burn the store of Henry Gray, which, with the property therein contained at the time was of the value of five hundred dollars." There was a severance as to the defendant, and he demurred to the indictment upon the ground that it fails to allege the ownership of the property contained in the store alleged to have been set fire to or burned. This demurrer was overruled and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the trial of the cause Henry Gray, a witness for the state, testified that his storehouse in Wilcox county was burned on the night of January 6, 1896, between the hours of 10 and 11 o'clock that he left the store about half past 9 that night, and that at that time there was no fire in the stove in the store, and there was no lamp burning; that he carried a large stock of merchandise in the store; that the storehouse, at the time it was burned, was worth about $100, and the stock of goods in the store at the time was worth about $625. This witness testified also to the discovery of tracks leading to and from the back of the storehouse, and that some of the tracks discovered by him corresponded to the tracks of the defendant. Two witnesses for the state testified that the morning after the defendant and two other persons who were indicted with him were placed in jail, charged with arson for the burning of Henry Gray's store, Mose Rodgers said in the presence and hearing of the defendant that he (the defendant) and Tom Grimes burned the store. The defendant moved to exclude this testimony, upon the ground that it was irrelevant, misleading, and immaterial, and that the corpus delicti had not been established. The court overruled this motion, allowed the evidence to go to the jury, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant introduced several witnesses, whose testimony tended to show that the value of the storehouse at the time it was burned was $40 or $50, and that the stock of goods contained in the store was not worth more than $250 or $300. There were several witnesses introduced for the defendant, who testified that his general character in the community where he lived was good. After the introduction of all the evidence by the defendant, the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. State
... ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to make this proof after the defendant had rested his case. Granison ... v. State, 117 Ala. 22, 23 So. 146; Walker v. State, 139 Ala. 56, 35 So. 1011 ... We find no reversible error in any of the rulings of the trial court made in connection with jury argument ... The gravity of charge, volume of evidence, credibility of ... ...
-
Braxton v. State
...question of guilt being for the jury. Davis v. State, 141 Ala. 62, 37 So. 676; McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159; Granison v. State, 117 Ala. 22, 23 So. 146; Daniels v. State, 12 Ala.App. 119, 68 So. Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 150, 31 So. 806, 91 Am.St.Rep. 21; Winslow v. State, 76 Al......
-
Barlew v. State
... ... further examination of the witness Wingo on matters not in ... rebuttal upon being recalled by defendant after the evidence ... was closed was in the discretion of the trial court, and no ... abuse of the discretion is shown. Dyer v. State, 88 ... Ala. 225, 7 So. 267; Granison v. State, 117 Ala. 22, ... 23 So. 146; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bowman, 141 Ala. 175, ... 37 So. 493; Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 44, 38 So ... 919; Cross v. State, 147 Ala. 125, 41 So. 875; ... McBride v. Sullivan, 155 Ala. 166, 45 So. 902 ... That ... part of the oral charge set out ... ...
-
Cunningham v. State
... ... destroyed the house was not accidental, but the result of ... human agency, of incendiary origin, and therefore afforded ... the necessary inference to establish the corpus delicti ... Savage v. State, 68 So. 498; Winslow v ... State, 76 Ala. 42; Granison v. State, 117 Ala ... 22, 23 So. 146 ... Threats ... made by the defendant, or ill will exhibited by him, against ... the owner or occupant of the burned house, were admissible in ... evidence for the purpose of showing motive. Hinds v ... State, 55 Ala. 145; Simpson v. State, 111 ... ...