Heath v. State
| Decision Date | 03 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 588. |
| Citation | 7 So.2d 579,30 Ala.App. 416 |
| Parties | HEATH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; W.W Wallace, Judge.
Frank Head and L.H. Ellis, both of Columbiana, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction of grand larceny. Subject of the theft was a quantity of lumber, stolen from the lumber shed of Montevallo Lumber Company. A day or two later, the defendant was found in possession of the property. Explanation of his possession thereof was that he had purchased it, the night before its discovery, from an unknown party.
On a trial for larceny, the corpus delicti having been established, the unexplained possession by the defendant of the recently stolen property is a fact from which the jury may infer his guilt. The onus of explaining this possession was upon the defendant. Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; 13 Alabama Digest, Larceny, 64(1). In charging the jury that such was the settled law, the trial court was correct.
The sufficiency of his explanation of possession of the stolen property was a question for the jury. Bryant case, supra; Driggers v. State, 29 Ala.App. 167, 193 So. 878; Richardson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 403, 197 So. 92.
The whole record impresses us as strikingly free of error, and the case peculiarly one which presented the single question, the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This, as stated, was for the decision of the jury.
The three adverse rulings of the court upon the evidence were correct and nothing further need be said as regards the main trial.
It is our further conclusion that, as to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial predicated upon newly discovered evidence, this court cannot, and should not, disturb it.
Conceding without deciding, that movant did not offend the rule of diligence in failing to produce this evidence in the main trial (7 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, k939(1)), we cannot say that this new evidence would have probably changed the result of the verdict had it been there, seasonably, presented. McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183; Brock v. Shirley, 29 Ala.App. 449, 197 So. 665. It is true that, upon this hearing, the defendant produced the party who purportedly had sold him the lumber in question, thus to support his explanation of innocent possession. Nevertheless, to rebut this testimony, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 731
...Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261, and is yet to be overruled. In this connection, we take note of the case of Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416, 7 So.2d 579; the defendant was tried for grand larceny. His explanation of his possession of the stolen property was that he had purchased......
-
Hubbard v. State
...unsatisfactorily explained recent possession of the stolen property was sufficient to justify a conviction. See also, Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416, 7 So.2d 579; Morrow v. State, 19 Ala.App. 212, 97 So. 106; Bell v. State, 23 Ala.App. 355, 125 So. It is urged in brief of counsel that Budd......
-
Hubbard v. State, 45944
...the use of the word 'burden' resulted in prejudicial error.' State v. Roof, 196 S.C. 204, 12 S.E.2d 705, 708. Also, see Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416, 7 So.2d 579. In general, see Hunt v. State, 64 Ga.App. 320, 13 S.E.2d 117; Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199, 200; Brown v. State, 74 Ga.App. 98......
-
Chavers v. State
...of the correctness of the rulings by the trial judge and the decisions thereon rest largely within his sound discretion. Heath v. State, 30 Ala.App. 416, 7 So.2d 579; Espey v. State, 270 Ala. 669, 120 So.2d The testimony presented by the State through the appellant's son and stepdaughter wa......