Hardeman v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 62
• Citation: 14 Ala.App. 35,70 So. 979
• Parties: HARDEMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

70 So. 979

14 Ala.App. 35

HARDEMAN v. STATE.

6 Div. 62

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 8, 1916

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort Judge.

Will Hardeman was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM P.J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery. During the examination of a state's witness by the solicitor, the defendant objected to the introduction of testimony going to show what transpired between the defendant and the party alleged to have been robbed, prior to the actual robbery.

It was the state's theory, borne out by the evidence, that the offense was committed about 9:30 or 9:45 of a certain evening, and that the defendant, about an hour before this time, had met up with one Sanders, the person robbed, and was with him continuously until the commission of the offense. The state, over the objection of the defendant, was permitted to show by the testimony of a state's witness that, at the time of this meeting, the defendant had asked Sanders to go to a certain house to get some whisky, and further permitted the witness to testify that they bought whisky at this place, and that Sanders paid for same, and in so doing exhibited the money, of which he was afterwards robbed. To the questions eliciting all of this evidence, the defendant objected on the ground that it was not a part of the res gestae.

It is impossible--

"to lay down a general rule as to the acts or declarations which will be received as forming part of the res gestae. Each case is dependent in a great degree on its peculiar facts and circumstances. Such acts or declarations as are thus received must have been done or made at the time of the occurrence of the main fact, must have a tendency to elucidate it, and must so harmonize with it as obviously to constitute one transaction. It is not essential that they should be precisely concurrent in point of time with the main fact; if they spring out of the transaction if they elucidate it; *** they are regarded as contemporaneous with the main facts." Wesley v. State, 52 Ala. 182, 187. "Time alone is not a determining criterion when the question is whether a thing said or done is a part of a given transaction." Domingus v. State, 94 Ala. 9, 11 So. 190.

It was necessary to a correct understanding of the offense charged that the continuous acts leading up to it be presented in evidence. These incidents were as much a part of the res gestae as the actual robbery. The actions of the...