Holley v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 1895
• Citation: 105 Ala. 100,17 So. 102
• Parties: HOLLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 102

105 Ala. 100

HOLLEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 7, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J M. Carmichael, Judge.

The appellant, Burrell Holley, and George and Ed. Price were jointly indicted and tried for robbery. The Prices were acquitted, but Burrell Holley was convicted of the offense charged, and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years and appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that several men disguised by having crocus sacks over the upper portion of their bodies and caps of similar material over their heads with holes for the eyes and nose cut in the caps, went to the house of Jesse Whitehurst about 11 o'clock at night broke in his door, aroused the said Whitehurst and his wife from bed and robbed them of something over $400 in money that Whitehurst and his wife had in a trunk in their house. Nobody was present except the robbers and Whitehurst and his wife. Immediately after the robbery Whitehurst went to the house of his neighbor, Bynum, and told of the robbery. Tracks were seen to go to and from said house. Holley was seen the evening before the robbery in the town of Abbeville, some miles away from the scene of the crime, in company with one of the Prices. Jesse Whitehurst testified that judging from the nose, eyes and neck, which were partially exposed, he took one of the robbers to be the defendant Holley, but that he did not recognize any of the other robbers. Mrs Whitehurst testified that she did not recognize or know who any of the robbers were. On the cross-examination of Jesse Whitehurst he admitted that he stated to his neighbor Bynum, that night, and to various other parties named in the bill of exceptions, the next day and at different times afterwards, that he did not recognize any of the robbers, did not know who they were, and had no idea who they were. And he further testified that he had a reason for making such statement, but he did not state the reason. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the court allowed the state to introduce proof of the good character of Jesse Whitehurst for truth and veracity. The defendant Holley offered the evidence of Mrs. Ed. Price, wife of one of the defendants, tending to prove an alibi for the defendant Holley. The court refused to permit this to be done, and the defendant excepted. The defendant requested the court in writing to give the jury the following charge, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give said charge: "The defendants are not required to prove the defense of alibi to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury, but if from all the evidence there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendants were at Whitehurst's house on the night of the robbery and had no part in such robbery, the jury must find the defendants not guilty."

H. D Clayton and M. Sollie, for appellant.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the...