Hicks v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 1893
• Citation: 13 So. 375,99 Ala. 169
• Parties: HICKS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 375

99 Ala. 169

HICKS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 6, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; John B. Tally, Judge.

Lit Hicks was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant in this case was indicted jointly with one Arthur Hale for the burglary of a dwelling house, and stealing therefrom "four gold coins of the United States, of the denomination of ten dollars each, and of the aggregate value of forty dollars, the personal property of one Mose Carter." On the trial of the case there was a severance and the appellant was tried and convicted for burglary, and sentenced to the penitentiary for four years. On the trial of the case, Mose Carter, as a witness for the state, testified that one Sunday in the month of September, in the year 1892 he and the defendant went to his house together, in the afternoon, and that while there he took from his trunk a box in which there was a sack, and in the sack there was some money, consisting of four $10 gold pieces, which he showed to the defendant, and then put them back in the sack and in the box, and placed the box in his trunk; that he spent the night away from home, and on returning, the next morning, found his door open, his trunk broken open, and his money gone; and that on the following Monday morning the defendant, in company with two or three others, left the place "for Guntersville, Alabama." The state's testimony further tended to show that the defendant, on being overtaken, was ordered by those making the arrest to hold up his hands; that just as this order was made he put his hand in his pocket, and took out a small bag, and handed it to Albert Saughter, who was accompanying him, and said to him "Here, hold this for me." The state's witness further testified that this bag had in it at the time 1 $10 gold piece and 10 silver dollars, and that there was found 1 $5 gold piece and some small change on the defendant, on his being searched. There was other testimony introduced on the part of the state, tending to prove that the defendant was seen with Arthur Hale on the Sunday night of the burglary between 11 and 1 o'clock, going in the direction of Mose Carter's house, and that on the next day he stopped at several stores on the way, trying to buy different articles. It was further shown by the state that the defendant gave different explanations as to how he came in possession of the money. On the cross-examination of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf, the solicitor "proceeded to lay a predicate for the purpose of impeaching him, by repeating to the witness the statements he had made to Bob Herron [in a confession which said Herron alleged the defendant made to him while under arrest, to which confession the court had refused to allow the said Herron to testify,] and then asked the witness if he made such statements." In answer to such question the defendant denied that he had made some of the statements, and admitted others, "but stated that he was induced to make them." When the defendant closed his evidence, the state recalled Bob Herron, and "asked him to state what the defendant said in his confession made to him while under arrest." The defendant objected to this witness testifying to any conversation with the defendant, in which the defendant made a confession, on the ground "that it was a confession by defendant, and that the court, on the preliminary examination of Bob Herron, had held that the confession, or evidence of the confession, was inadmissible, because it was...