Hale v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1899
• Parties: HALE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 236

122 Ala. 85

HALE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Cherokee county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Fayette Hale appeals from a conviction. Reversed.

The indictment charged that he, "with intent to steal, broke into and entered the store of Schele McConnell, in which goods, merchandise, or clothing,-things of value,-were kept for use, sale, or deposit," etc. J. L. McConnell, as a witness for the state, testified that the storehouse burglarized belonged to him, but that Schele McConnell, his son, occupied it and carried on a mercantile business therein with the witness' permission. It was shown by the evidence for the state that the storehouse so occupied by Schele McConnell was broken into, and several articles of merchandise taken therefrom. Bud Garrett, a witness for the state, testified to the facts of the burglary; stating that he stood on the outside of the store and watched while the defendant entered the store and obtained the goods taken therefrom. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that on the night of the alleged burglary he was at his house, and he did not leave there until next morning. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, and the other witnesses introduced by him, testified that, about the middle of the night the burglary was alleged to have been committed, Bud Garrett came to the house of the defendant, and brought the articles of merchandise which were subsequently found in the house of the defendant; that Garrett owed the defendant's wife for washing, and he gave her a pair of shoes in payment thereof; that the pair of pants found in the defendant's house were given to the defendant by the Garrett for doing some hauling for him; and that the other articles so found were brought to the defendant's house by said Garrett. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "The court charges the jury that the jury has a right to look to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of any testimony, and if the jury believe the statement of any witness to be unreasonable, and contrary to the observation and experience of the jury, the jury may disregard such testimony entirely." (2) "The court charges the jury that if the building which was broken and entered into was the property of John L. McConnell, and not of Schele McConnell, the jury cannot convict the defendant." (3) "The court charges the jury that if, after considering all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, growing out of the evidence of Bud Garrett, the jury must acquit the defendant." (4) "The court charges the jury that if they have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, as charged in the indictment, growing out of the entire evidence, or any part thereof, they must give the defendant the benefit of this doubt, and acquit him." (5) "The court charges the jury that, if they find from the evidence in this case that Bud Garrett is of a bad character, then the jury may look to this bad character, in determining what credence, if any, they will give to the testimony of said Bud Garrett." (6) "The court charges the jury that if they find from the evidence that Bud Garrett has made contradictory statements as to the material facts in this case, or any of such facts, the jury may look to these contradictory statements in order to determine what credence they will give to the testimony of said Bud Garrett." (7) "If any individual juror is not convinced of defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, the jury cannot convict." (8) "The court charges the jury, while the law is that the recent possession of stolen goods, if unexplained, may justify a conviction, yet, if defendant has explained his possession of the goods to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury, and if upon a fair consideration of all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt, growing out of any part of the evidence as to defendant's guilt, the jury must acquit him." (9) "The court charges the jury that, even if defendant was found in possession of the stolen goods, yet, if...