Lindsey v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1911 |
| Citation | 54 So. 516,170 Ala. 80 |
| Parties | LINDSEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; M. Sollie, Judge.
Ike Lindsey was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
T. M Patterson, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Peach & Thomas, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the burglary of a storehouse, and the testimony of the state's witness, Peach McLeod, prima facie showed his complicity in the crime. McLeod, however was an accomplice, and himself participated in the burglary. It is insisted for the defendant that there was no testimony introduced, other than that of this accomplice, which in any way tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. On this theory he requested in writing the general affirmative charge for his acquittal, if the jury believed the evidence.
It appears that the burglarized storehouse was at a railroad station, and the burglary occurred on a Saturday night at an hour unknown; that the entry was effected by breaking open a window; and that an ax was found under the store steps, which was identified as one which was kept and used at a woodpile near some section houses in the vicinity of the station. The evidence relied upon to connect the defendant with the burglary in question seems to consist of two facts solely viz.: That he was at the station when the train arrived on this Saturday night at about 9:30 o'clock, along with several other negroes, and that one Jim Beasley, who then got off of the train, asked him if he was going off on the train to which defendant replied, he then standing near the woodpile where the said ax usually lay. It has been held by this court that the defendant's proximity to the scene of the crime, and opportunity to commit it, it having occurred at a very unseasonable hour, is a circumstance to be weighed by the jury in determining his guilt or innocence. Ross v. State, 74 Ala. 532. But it certainly cannot be plausibly argued that the defendant's presence early in the night at a public place, such as a railway station, in company with others at train time, even though the scene of the crime be near at hand, itself tends in the slightest degree to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, which occurred, it may be, and probably, several hours later. Can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. State
... ... show the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, ... were questions for the jury. Code 1923, § 5635 [Code 1940, ... Tit. 15, § 307]; Read v. State, 195 Ala. 671, 71 So ... 96; Doss v. State, 220 Ala. 30, 123 So. 231, 68 ... A.L.R. 712; Lindsey v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 54 So ... "It ... is not necessary that the corroborating evidence refer to any ... particular statement or fact testified to by the accomplice ... If it strengthens the probative criminating force of his ... testimony and tends to connect the defendant with ... ...
-
Doss v. State
...of the offense charged. Motes v. State, 20 Ala. App. 195, 101 So. 286; Tompkins v. State, 7 Ala. App. 140, 61 So. 479; Lindsay v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 54 So. 516; Perkins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 113, 101 So. Alexander v. State, supra; People v. Morton, 139 Cal. 719, 73 P. 609. The record in t......
-
Skumro v. State
...Berry v. State, supra; Smith v. State, 230 Ala. 413, 161 So. 538; Doss v. State, 220 Ala. 30, 123 So. 231, 68 A.L.R. 712; Lindsey v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 54 So. 516; Pearce v. State, 231 Ala. 150, 164 So. 118; v. State (Ala.Sup.) --- So. ----. [1] It is further established that the corrobora......
-
Dolvin v. State
...crime at a very reasonable hour with the opportunity to commit the crime is a circumstance to be weighed by the jury. Lindsey v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 82, 54 So. 516 (1911); Enzor v. State, 24 Ala.App. 346, 349, 135 So. 595, cert. denied, 223 Ala. 297, 135 So. 598 (1931). The defendant was id......