Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 474. |
| Citation | 31 So.2d 519,249 Ala. 348 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1947.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Walter J. Knabe and Bernard Lobman, both of Montgomery, for petitioner.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty Gen., opposed.
If the defendant entertained the intent to steal the money at the time the letter containing it was delivered to him or when he assumed dominion over it and thereafter extracted it from the envelope and converted it to his own use, and there was evidence tending to sustain this conclusion, he was guilty of larceny as charged in the first count of the indictment. Beckham v. State, 100 Ala. 15, 14 So. 859; Eggleston v. State, 129 Ala. 80, 30 So. 582, 87 Am.St.Rep. 17.
On the other hand if he formed the felonious purpose and intent to appropriate the money to his own use after the letter was delivered to him and he had entered upon the performance of his agency and in pursuance of that intent appropriated the money to his own use, and there was evidence tending to support this view, he was guilty of embezzlement as charged in the second count of the indictment. Eggleston v. State, supra.
Where as here the indictment contains two counts charging offenses calling for the same punishment, and relates to a single criminal transaction, only one penalty can be imposed and a general verdict of guilty followed by judgment thereon precludes any further prosecution based on that transaction. Cawley v. State, 37 Ala. 152; Sampson v. State, 107 Ala. 76, 18 So. 207; Burt v. State, 159 Ala. 134, 48 So. 851; Kilgore v. State, 74 Ala. 1.
Writ denied.
On Rehearing.
The indictment against the petitioner contained two counts--for grand larceny and for emblezzlement. Both of said counts were held to be good and at the conclusion of the evidence petitioner requested the affirmative charge as to each of said counts, which was refused, the trial resulting in a general verdict of guilty.
On the authority of Norman v. State, 13 Ala.App. 337, 69 So. 362, in the circumstances stated, petitioner insists he was entitled to a specific verdict as to which of the charges he was found guilty. The evidence, as found by the court of appeals, warranted a submission to the jury on both counts. Hawes v. State, 216 Ala. 151, 112 So. 761, Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404, 406 do not support this contention.
In the case first cited the evidence did not warrant a submission to the jury as to defendant's guilt under one count of the indictment and the judgment was reversed for refusal of the affirmative charge in favor of the defendant as to that count. In the other case cited, to quote from the opinion of this court referring to the opinion of the court of appeals, it was said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. State
...calling for the same punishment, and relates to a single criminal transaction, only one penalty can be imposed." Jackson v. State, 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d 519 (1947), and cases therein cited. Thus, in Wilkerson v. State, 41 Ala.App. 265, 130 So.2d 348, cert. denied, 272 Ala. 712, 130 So.2d 3......
-
McGriff v. State
...v. State, 534 So.2d 378 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (reference to appellant as thief did not amount to reversible error); Jackson v. State, 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d 519 (1947) (reference to appellant as `damned thief' did not amount to reversible Certainly, McGriff's actions in this case could be said ......
-
Smith v. State
...v. State, 534 So.2d 378 (Ala.Cr. App.1988) (reference to appellant as thief did not amount to reversible error); Jackson v. State, 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d 519 (1947) (reference to appellant as "damned thief" did not amount to reversible Here, the comment was supported by the record. Smith to......
-
Bracewell v. State
...in this case he (the defendant) is a damned thief," ' Jackson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 42, 31 So.2d 514, 519, certiorari denied 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d 519." Justice Merrill, writing for our Supreme Court, held that no reversible error resulted from the use of the offensive epithet. Further, th......