Griffis v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1936
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 311
• Citation: 27 Ala.App. 205,169 So. 24
• Parties: GRIFFIS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

169 So. 24

27 Ala.App. 205

GRIFFIS v. STATE.

8 Div. 311

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 16, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; W.W. Callahan, Judge.

Jack Griffis, alias Griffin, was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J.G Rankin, of Athens, for appellant.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

BRICKEN Presiding Judge.

The offense complained of in this case was alleged to have been committed on Saturday night, October 13, 1933. The indictment against this appellant was found by the grand jury and duly returned into open court and filed on November 6, 1935; the offense charged being robbery.

Otis Cook, the alleged injured party, and upon whose testimony the state relied for a conviction, he being the only witness who testified for the state, stated, in substance, upon the night in question he was robbed of the money described in the indictment by two negro men each of whom were unknown to him, and his testimony as shown by the record was:

"My name is Otis Cook and I live in Athens; I have seen the defendant here, first saw him in my store the fourteenth night of October, 1933; there was another negro with him and the other one called for a penny box of matches and gave me a quarter and they followed me back to the cash register and while I was counting the change out in the other negro's hand this negro here stuck a gun in my face and told me to stick them up; they took $121.00 in currency and twenty-one dollars in silver out of my pocket,--while the defendant held the gun on me the other one took it; they left together. The next time I saw this negro was on the street just this side of the Ritz Theater; he was the man that put the gun in my face and held me up; that was in Limestone county, Alabama."

And on cross-examination he testified, among other things:

"*** The negro fair was going on at that time and there were a good many strange negroes in town during the negro fair; I never had seen this negro before to recognize him. *** When I first saw him again it was on Friday morning, but I don' remember just how long it has been--about two months ago; it was about twenty-three months after it happened; when he drew the gun on me and told me to stick 'em up he was standing right behind another negro who was standing between me and the defendant; defendant had the gun right over the other negro's shoulder right in my face. I have never seen the other negro since then and had never seen him before that that I know of; *** I hadn't seen this negro before and hadn't seen him since until about three months ago. *** I imagine it was ten or fifteen minutes that I had to look at him--it seemed like a long time to me; I was looking at him and the other negro that whole time; the first time I saw him he was walking on the sidewalk and I was driving down the street and I thought it was him and drove up the street and turned around and parked my car and let him pass me and I got a good look at him and then I knew it was him--I knew he was the same one that robbed me."

The defendant strenuously denied that he was one of the men who robbed Cook, and stated he had never been in his store and had never seen him before. He testified himself, and offered several unimpeached witnesses, all of whom testified positively that this appellant was working with them hauling cotton on the day and night in question; that he worked until 9:30 o'clock that night and had been constantly in the presence of these several witnesses during the entire day the offense was committed. Cook testified he was robbed at 8 o'clock that night, at which time this appellant and his several witnesses testified he was hauling cotton some distance from the scene of the crime.

From the foregoing, the controlling question in this case was the identity of the defendant. The injured party stated he was the man. That he denied, and his several witnesses also swore, he was not the man who committed the offense.

This conflict made a jury question, and as shown by the record after many hours of deliberation,...