Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 25 July 1895 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Limestone county; Thomas R. Roulhac Judge.
Elijah Jones, alias Elijah Patton, was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
The appellant was indicted, with one Arnett Mills and Harry Moore, for the larceny of a steer, and was tried separately from his codefendants, who pleaded guilty, and was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years and three months. Upon the trial of the case, the state introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment. Among the other witnesses introduced in behalf of the state were the defendant's wife and son, who testified that, on the night the steer was stolen, the defendant brought to the house fresh beef, which was concealed in the kitchen, and was eaten by themselves and the defendant; but that they said nothing about it until after the defendant was arrested. The defendant undertook to prove by his evidence an alibi. The ruling of the court upon the evidence is 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 you have a reasonable doubt either as to the ownership of the steer, or as to whether the defendant helped in this offense, or as to whether the defendant was at home when the steer was killed, then you should acquit the defendant." (2) "As to Arnett Mills' wife and boy, they, too, were accomplices in this offense, if they knew the steer was being stolen, and kept and concealed the offense till the parties were otherwise detected."
McClellan & McClellan, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The witnesses for the state, Arnett Mills and Harry Moore, on their examination in chief, testified affirmatively that at a former term of the circuit court, when they pleaded guilty and were convicted of the larceny, they disclosed the participation of the defendant in its commission. The disclosure, they stated, was made in open court, to the presiding judge, while on the bench. The evidence of the judge then presiding was in direct contradiction of the statement. He denied that they made any such statement to him, or in any way implicated the defendant in the commission of the offense, until a subsequent period,-a year or more thereafter. Against the objection of the defendant, the state was permitted to show that at the former term, in the jury room, near the court room, the witnesses did have a conversation with the solicitor, who bore the title of "Judge," and in some particulars, in personal appearance, resembled the presiding judge. What was the subject of the conversation-whether it related to the offense, to the connection of the witnesses or of the defendant with it-was not shown. The admission of this evidence was manifestly erroneous. If that which was left to mere conjecture or speculation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blydenburg
...... v. People , 9 Colo. 122 (10 P. 799); Graves v. People , 18 Colo. 170 (32 P. 63); People v. Ah. Chung , 54 Cal. 398; Burrell's Cir. Ev. 733;. Hodge v. Territory , 12 Okla. 108 (69 P. 1077);. State v. Gleim , 17 Mont. 17 (41 P. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655); Jones v. State , 107 Ala. 93 (18 So. 237); People v. Foley , 64 Mich. 148 (31. N.W. 94); Adams v. State , 31 Ohio St. 462. . . For the. reasons stated, a new trial must be ordered. Many other. exceptions have been argued, but those we have considered. sufficiently dispose of ......
-
State v. Blydenburg
...Hodge v. Territory, 69 Pac. 1077, 12 Okl. 108;State v. Gleim, 41 Pac. 998, 17 Mont. 17, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655;Jones v. State, 107 Ala. 93, 18 South. 237;People v. Foley, 64 Mich. 148, 31 N. W. 94;Adams v. State, 31 Ohio St. 462. For the reasons stated, a new trial must be ord......
-
Bush v. State
...... caution. Grimes v. State, 63 Ala. 166. Every witness. is presumed to testify truthfully, until the contrary [19. Ala.App. 655] be made to appear from the evidence, and then. only when it is so ascertained from a consideration of. evidence. Moore v. Jones, 13 Ala. 296. It is the. function of the jury to weigh and determine, from the. evidence, as to whether a witness has willfully sworn falsely. to a material fact, and before they can reject the testimony. of a witness, their minds must be reasonably satisfied of. that fact. There is a ......
-
State v. La Bar
...v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412, 9 L. Ed. 475;Conrad v. Griffey, 11 How. 480, 13 L. Ed. 779;McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594,6 South. 301;Jones v. State, 107 Ala. 93,18 South. 237;Burks v. State, 78 Ark. 271, 93 S. W. 983,8 Ann. Cas. 476;People v. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85;Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 396, 26 Pac......