Latikos v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 375 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 655,88 So. 47 |
| Parties | LATIKOS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.
Mitchell Latikos was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
See also, 88 So. 45.
C.W Tompkins and Brooks & McMillan, all of Mobile, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Fields, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This prosecution originated in the recorder's court of Mobile. The record discloses the fact that the original affidavit in that court charged this defendant with the offense of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing two boxes of cigars of the value of $6, the personal property of Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Company, a corporation, knowing that it was stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner. This charge being a misdemeanor, the said recorder had jurisdiction to finally try and determine the same and to render judgment therein. Code 1907, § 1221.
Upon this affidavit a warrant was issued for the arrest of this defendant for the alleged offense and was signed by one D.H. Eddington, recorder of the city of Mobile. This warrant was returnable to the recorder's court, but, if the warrant was ever executed, there is nothing in this record to indicate it. And as the record in this case contains no judgment in said recorder's court, or other adjudication thereof, as far as this court may know, the cause must be still pending in said recorder's court of the city of Mobile. This being true, there is nothing to show how the circuit court of Mobile county, the judgment from which this appeal is taken, acquired jurisdiction of this cause. It is necessary that this should affirmatively appear by the record. Moss v. State, 42 Ala. 546; Haynes v. State, 5 Ala.App. 167, 59 So. 325; Howard v. State, 81 So. 345; Perry v. State, 81 So. 858; Peeples v. State, 84 So. 859.
On the trial of this defendant in the circuit court it appears that the state relied principally upon the testimony of the witness Clarence Leland, who testified, among other things, that he had been in the employ of the Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Company, and that he delivered the two boxes of cigars, which he knew had been stolen by another negro, one McCants, to defendant, and that he himself had been discharged from the employ of said Ogburn-Griffin Grocery Company for stealing, and was not at the time in their employ.
On cross-examination of the defendant while testifying as a witness in his own behalf the court permitted the state, over the objection of the defendant, to show by said witness that he had formerly been convicted of receiving stolen property. There was no error in this ruling of the court. Code 1907, § 4009; Prov. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Black, 15 Ala.App. 437, 73 So. 757; Sims v. State, 14 Ala.App 24, 70 So. 959; Wells v. State, 131 Ala. 48, 31 So. 572. This testimony was permissible for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness only, and the fact that there was an appeal pending from the judgment of former conviction did not render this testimony incompetent. Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 35 So. 53, 100...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. State
... ... more than authorize evidence of the fact of conviction for ... such offense as it may affect the weight of his evidence. It ... has been held that it is not permissible to go into the ... details of such offense. Waters v. State, 117 Ala ... 108, 22 So. 490; Latikos v. State, 17 Ala.App. 655, ... 88 So. 47. Prior to this statutory authorization of such ... discrediting evidence of witness' conviction of an ... offense involving moral turpitude, such conviction could only ... be given in evidence by a duly authenticated record of the ... conviction of ... ...
-
State v. Apan
...to go into the details thereof. State v. Mount, 73 N. J. Law, 582, 64 A. 124, 125, is much to the same effect, as are Latikos v. State, 17 Ala. App. 655, 88 So. 47, 48, and Smith v, State, 102 Miss. 330, 59 So. 96. The very question was before the court in Lamoureux v. New York, N. H. & H. ......
-
Conley v. State
...Garvin v. Robertson, 289 Ala. 60, 265 So.2d 602 (1972); Brimer v. State, 27 Ala.App. 75, 165 So. 788 (1936); Latikos v. State, 17 Ala.App. 655, 88 So. 47 (1921). From the record it appears that the trial court sustained defense counsel's objection. Therefore the appellant has no cause to co......
-
Suggs v. State, 156
...(2d Cir.); Bloch v. United States, 226 F.2d 185 (9th Cir.); United States v. Empire Packing Co., 174 F.2d 16 (7th Cir.); Latikos v. State, 17 Ala.App. 655, 88 So. 47; State v. Johnson, 99 Ariz. 52, 406 P.2d 403, 16 A.L.R.3d 723; People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1, 92 P.2d 402; Gonzales v. State, ......