Leonard v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 987. |
| Citation | 18 Ala.App. 427,93 So. 56 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
Ed Leonard, alias Will Devine, was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the store of Harris Bros., a partnership, in the city of Bessemer, was broken into and entered, and the large amount of merchandise enumerated in the indictment was stolen therefrom.
The indictment against this defendant contained two counts. The first count charged burglary and grand larceny; the second with buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. Burglary and grand larceny may be charged in the alternative in the same count. Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So 142; Bowen v. State, 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335.
The demurrers to this indictment were properly overruled. Moreover, the defendant having been convicted under the second count of the indictment, this operated as an acquittal of the offense charged in the first count; therefore the ruling of the court on demurrers to the first count need not be considered.
The demurrers to defendant's plea as to the jurisdiction of the court to try this case were properly sustained, as it is not necessary to allege specifically in an indictment where the offense complained of was committed; but it must be proven upon the trial of the case to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is preferred. Code 1907, § 7140.
After a consideration of all the testimony, we are of the opinion that the jury would have been authorized to have found the defendant guilty of either of the counts contained in the indictment, as there was ample evidence, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain either one of the two counts. An indictment receives its legal efficacy from the finding and return of the grand jury, and the legal evidence of its verity is the return "a true bill," apparent upon some part of it bearing the signature of the foreman. It is not essential to the validity of the indictment that the solicitor should have prepared or signed it, and the objection urged here to this indictment that Ben G. Perry signed the indictment as "Solicitor Tenth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magwood v. State
...discretion in admitting her testimony as a fingerprint and palm print expert. Merriweather v. State; Davis v. State; Leonard v. State, 18 Ala.App. 427, 93 So. 56 (1922); 1 Underhill, In her testimony, the fingerprint examiner explained how fingerprints occur, how no two persons' prints are ......
-
Johnson v. State, 6 Div. 942
...introduced. As a preliminary matter, we note that fingerprints have long been held to be admissible in Alabama courts. Leonard v. State, 18 Ala.App. 427, 93 So. 56 (1922). On the other hand, it is equally well-settled "On the trial of a person for the alleged commission of a particular crim......
-
Ex parte Johnson
..."... "As a preliminary matter, we note that fingerprints have long been held to be admissible in Alabama courts. Leonard v. State, 18 Ala.App. 427, 93 So. 56 (1922). On the other hand, it is equally well-settled " 'On the trial of a person for the alleged commission of a particular crime, e......
-
Murry v. State
...under the other count. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56. See also Rogers v. State, 17 Ala.App. 175, 83 So. 359; Leonard v. State, 18 Ala.App. 427, 93 So. 56. What we have written above being true, and since it is settled law that 'one single transaction or state of facts cannot be so......