Hunter v. State
| Citation | 41 So.2d 637,34 Ala.App. 565 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 27. |
| Parties | HUNTER et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Hugh Reed, Jr., of Centre, for appellants.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Thos. F. Parker, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
These appellants have been convicted of the larceny of three sets of harness, of a total value of seventy-five dollars.
We have studiously examined this record, a task of considerable labor in view of the state of this record. It is replete with typographical errors, elisions, and omissions from the indictment through the judgment.
In the indictment appearing in the record one of the defendants is designated as Paul Gunter, rather than Paul Hunter, and the ownership of the property is laid in Horace Chamblee. The record shows that Horace Chambless was the party who missed some harness.
The verdict of the jury and the judgment entered pursuant thereto finds 'the defendant' guilty.
The evidence presented by the State is vague, indefinite and uncertain. While the witnesses refer to finding the harness as it was being used by the 'Hunter boys,' it clearly appears from careful reading of their testimony that neither of the defendants was present when the harness was found, but it was found in possession of one James Hunter, who is not a defendant.
In its strongest aspect the evidence presented by the State is weak. If objections had been interposed much of the evidence adduced could not have been legally admitted. However, the appellants were not represented by counsel in the proceedings below.
The oral charge is short. After reading the indictment, and the statute pertaining to larceny, Code 1940, Tit. 14, § 331, the court instructed the jury as follows:
In the above portion of the court's instructions it is to be noted that the court directly invaded the province of the jury in saying 'This is a very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State
...intendments in favor of the court below, we reach the conclusion that the finding and judgment are wrong." Hunter v. State, 34 Ala.App. 565, 567, 41 So.2d 637 (1949).' Granger v. State, 473 So.2d 1137, 1139 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). " ' "The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts ar......
-
White v. State
...intendments in favor of the court below, we reach the conclusion that the finding and judgment are wrong.' Hunter v. State, 34 Ala.App. 565, 567, 41 So.2d 637 (1949)." Granger v. State, 473 So.2d 1137, 1139 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). " 'The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are.......
-
Langham v. State
...intendments in favor of the court below, we reach the conclusion that the finding and judgment are wrong.' Hunter v. State, 34 Ala.App. 565, 567, 41 So.2d 637 (1949)." Granger v. State, 473 So.2d 1137, 1139 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). " ' " 'The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts ......
-
Harris v. State
...intendments in favor of the court below, we reach the conclusion that the finding and judgment are wrong.' Hunter v. State, 34 Ala.App. 565, 567, 41 So.2d 637 (1949)." Granger v. State, 473 So.2d 1137, 1139 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). " ' " 'The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts ......