Haskins v. State, 8 Div. 262.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1931
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 262.
• Parties: HASKINS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

135 So. 642

24 Ala.App. 384

HASKINS v. STATE.

8 Div. 262.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr. Judge.

Desmond Haskins was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Jas. C Roberts, of Florence, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The fourth count of the indictment upon which the conviction of this appellant rested charged him with the offense of buying receiving, concealing, etc., certain stolen property, the personal property of Morris Gordon, knowing that it was stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner.

That the goods in question were stolen from the store of Morris Gordon and belonged to him was without conflict. The facts were admitted by the defendant, and but one inquiry for the jury to determine was presented, Did this appellant commit the offense, and was this fact established by the evidence under the required measure of proof? The appellant strenuously denied all connection with the stolen goods, and testified he had nothing to do with the commission of the offense charged and no knowledge in any manner concerning same. He offered testimony of his good character also.

One Ellis Henderson, the principal state witness, testified that he bought the goods in question from this appellant who stated to him "he had found the things."

There was other evidence contradictory to that given by the accused and incriminating in its nature. The evidence being thus in conflict presented a jury question rendering inapt the affirmative charge requested. Under the evidence, the court was without authority to direct a verdict.

The motion for a new trial is not presented in a manner to authorize its consideration. Section 6088 of the Code 1923 provides for an appeal from decisions on motions for new trial in both civil and criminal cases, but in no case can the rulings of the court on motion for new trial be reviewed on appeal where the bill of exceptions does not show an exception was reserved to the court's rulings. The statute itself is clear on this point, and by innumerable decisions of the two appellate courts of this state it has been expressly held necessary and mandatory. A trial court cannot be placed in error in the absence of an exception to the ruling complained of. The motion for a new trial in this...