Huffman v. State
| Decision Date | 30 May 1901 |
| Citation | 130 Ala. 89,30 So. 394 |
| Parties | HUFFMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
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:
S. D Logan, for appellant.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. State
...The statement by Mr. Long to defendant was within the rule of our cases. Elmore v. State, 223 Ala. 490, 137 So. 185; Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394; v. State, supra. The fact that defendant was under arrest, without more, would not render his admissions against interest inadmissi......
-
State v. Kerns
...fact. We think that it was to be determined by the trial court as any other matter touching the admissibility of evidence. Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394; People v. Loper, 159 Cal. 6, 112 P. 720, Ann. 1912B, 1193; Hauk v. State, 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127, 47 N.E. 465; State v. Gr......
-
State v. Dixson
... ... Kornstett, 62 Kan. 221, 61 P. 805; ... People v. Smith (N. Y.) 3 How. Prac. 226; King ... v. State, 40 Ala. 314; Grant v. State, 55 Ala ... 201; Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244; Maull v ... State, 95 Ala. 1, 11 So. 218; Washington v ... State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Huffman v ... State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394; Hardy v. United ... States, 3 App. D. C. 35; State v. Staley, 14 ... Minn. 105 (Gil. 75); State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; ... State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278; State v ... Anderson, 96 Mo. 241, 9 S.W. 636; State v ... Bradford, 156 Mo. 91, 56 ... ...
-
Fincher v. State
...759, 92 S.E. 309. See, also, 1 Greenl. on Ev. (16th Ed.) § 220: 1 Wigmore on Ev. § 832; 2 Bishop's New Crim. Proc. § 1227; Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 So. 394; v. State, 72 Ala. 244; Aaron v. State, 37 Ala. 106; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 242, 82 So. 489. It is the rule of the comm......