Howle v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 121 |
| Parties | HOWLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
On Rehearing, September 7, 1916
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort Judge.
J.T Howle was convicted of levying blackmail, and appeals. Affirmed.
A Latady, of Birmingham, for appellant.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
There is no material difference in the questions presented on this record and in the companion case of Jerome S. Brown v. State of Alabama (6 Div. 84) 72 So. 757. On the authority of the opinion in that case, the judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed. See Brown v. State, present term.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing.
It is complained on an application for rehearing that this case ought not to be affirmed on the authority of the companion case of Brown v. State (6 Div. 84) 72 So. 757 opinion rendered August 1, 1916. It is stated that while the cases are similar, they are different in that this defendant was in no way connected with the transactions between Brown and others in the commission of similar offenses; that they were held to be properly admitted in that case for the purpose of showing the criminal intent and illustrating and giving character to the acts of the defendant. To much of this evidence timely and appropriate objection was not interposed or exception reserved so as to bring the rulings of the trial court on its admissibility before us for review. But, aside from this consideration, and treating the question on its merits, it is shown by the evidence that Brown and the defendant were partners, coconspirators, in the commission of the crime. Section 6219 of the Code makes each conspirator equally guilty if he contributed by word or deed calculated to aid or encourage in the accomplishment of the resulting crime, though not present. See Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53, 57 So. 31; Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63, 32 So. 760, 92 Am.St.Rep. 17; Talley's Case, 102 Ala. 69, 15 So. 722; Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23, 18 Am.St.Rep. 91. The community of purpose, or conspiracy, need not be, and rarely is, proven by positive testimony. Pearce v. State, 4 Ala.App. 32, 58 So. 996; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274. The testimony complained of as inadmissible related to and had a tendency to show the character and conduct of the business of which this defendant, Howle, became a partner. Its operation was of a continuing nature, and the intent which entered into and prompted the manner of its operation was a material inquiry. Both Howle and Brown are shown to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
... ... 281, 61 P. 647; State v. McDaniel, 39 Ore. 161, 65 ... P. 520; Clowers v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 155, 184 P. 790.) ... It is ... not error to admit in evidence other similar transactions of ... defendant's co-conspirators. (16 C. J. 665, sec. 1327, ... note 4; Howle v. State, 15 Ala. App. 185, 72 So ... 759; State v. Flood, 148 Iowa 146, 127 N.W. 48; ... Boyle v. United States, 257 F. 803; Hays v ... State, 90 Tex. Cr. 192, 236 S.W. 482; People v. Schmidt, ... 33 Cal.App. 426, 165 P. 555.) ... An ... officer has the right at the time of ... ...
-
Whitehead v. State
...to the act of the defendant with respect to the automobile in question. Underhill, Cr.Ev. § 454; Brown v. State, 72 So. 757; Howle v. State, 72 So. 759. "Direct testimony as to the market value is in nature of opinion evidence. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may tes......
-
Campbell v. State
...So. 467; Brindley v. State, 193 Ala. 43, 69 So. 536, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 177; Newsom v. State, 72 So. 579; Brown v. State, 72 So. 757; Howle v. State, 72 So. 759. trial was before the court without a jury, and there is evidence in the record which, if believed, sustains the judgment of the tria......
- Morris v. State