Huffman v. State
Decision Date | 30 May 1890 |
Citation | 89 Ala. 33,8 So. 28 |
Parties | HUFFMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.
The indictment in this case contained three counts, each of which charged, in varying phraseology, that the defendant, being the bailee or agent of Sells Bros., "did embezzle, or fraudulently convert to his own use, money to about the amount of $150, the personal property of said Sells Brothers which came to his possession by virtue of said employment." The defendant demurred to the indictment because "it does not allege the value of the money embezzled, and because it does not allege the description or character of the money." The court overruled this demurrer, the defendant excepted, and thereupon pleaded not guilty. He also moved in arrest of judgment, on account of the insufficiency of the verdict, but this motion was overruled, and he excepted.
John G. Finley, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The indictment in this case pursues the form given in the Code and is sufficient. 2 Code, form 39, p. 270, (§ 3810.) The verdict in this case must be classed as a special one. Its language is: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of embezzlement of a sum of money less than twenty-five dollars." When a special verdict is found it must affirm every material ingredient of the offense, or no judgment can be rendered upon it. Under the authorities we are not able to affirm that anything was found except what was expressed. Hence we are not permitted to know or to infer that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. State
... ... State, 63 Ala. 55; Whitehead v. State, 16 Ala ... App. 427, 78 So. 467; Leonard v. State, 96 Ala. 108, ... 11 So. 307; Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401; ... Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 41, 12 So. 183; Reeves v ... State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Huffman v ... State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; Bailey v. State, ... 99 Ala. 143, 13 So. 566; Coleman v. State, 150 Ala ... 64, 43 So. 715; Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268, 125 ... So. 606; Doss v. State, supra; Malloy v. State, 209 ... Ala. 219, 96 So. 57 ... It ... therefore ... ...
-
State v. Park
...State v. DeWitt, 186 Mo. 61; State v. Pollock, 105 Mo. App. 273; State v. Reeves, 276 Mo. 339; State v. Miller, 255 Mo. 229; Huffman v. State, 89 Ala. 33. The rule is well settled that a special verdict must be responsive to the charge. The verdict here does not find the defendant guilty ge......
-
State v. Bickford
...402; State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. 472; Gibbs v. State, 34 Tex. 135; People v. Coch, 53 Cal. 627; People v. Ah Gow, 53 Cal. 627; Huffman v. State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; People v. Curtis, 76 Cal. 57, 17 P. 941; v. Bellard, 50 La.Ann. 594, 69 Am. St. Rep. 461, 23 So. 504; State v. French, 50 La.......
-
State v. Park
... ... (5) The ... verdict is a special one, not responsive to all of the ... essential elements of the charge, and is insufficient ... State v. DeWitt, 186 Mo. 61; State v ... Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 273; State v. Reeves, 276 ... Mo. 339; State v. Miller, 255 Mo. 229; Huffman ... v. State, 89 Ala. 33. The rule is well settled that a ... special verdict must be responsive to the charge. The verdict ... here does not find the defendant guilty generally, but finds ... him guilty of receiving stolen property worth over thirty ... dollars knowing it was stolen. This ... ...