Huffman v. State

• Citation: 130 Ala. 89,30 So. 394
• Parties: HUFFMAN v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 30 May 1901
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

30 So. 394

130 Ala. 89

HUFFMAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 30, 1901

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Associate Judge.

Dennis Huffman was convicted of larceny of two bales of cotton, and sentenced to hard labor for the county for two years, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The facts of the case relating to the rulings of the court reviewed on the present appeal are sufficiently shown in the opinion.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) If the jury believe from the evidence that the confession as testified to by the witness Isadore Ruffin, that occurred on Tuesday morning, was made by the defendant in consequence of the statement made by the said Ruffin, to the effect that if the defendant had stolen the property, it would be better for him to tell the truth about it, then the jury must exclude from their consideration such alleged confession. (2) If the jury believe from the evidence that the confession testified to by the witness Amos Jones was made in consequence of the statement made by the said Jones to the defendant, that it would be better for him [defendant] 'to tell the truth about it,' then the jury must exclude from their consideration the evidence of such confession."

S. D Logan, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

The witness, Ruffin, for the state, testified that he was the officer who arrested the defendant; that he questioned him about the cotton alleged to have been stolen, and he denied having taken it; that the following morning, witness called at the jail and had another conversation with defendant, in which he charged him with the larceny of the cotton, and he again denied it; that witness urged defendant to tell all he knew about the cotton, and finally said to him: "If you have stolen the cotton, it will be better for you to tell the truth about it," and, thereupon, the defendant admitted he had stolen it. This evidence was brought out by the state after the witness had testified that he had made no threats or promises to induce the defendant to confess. The defendant, afterwards, moved to exclude the evidence of confession, on the ground that it was obtained by holding out inducements to confess, by threats and promises, and that it...