Moore v. State, 5 Div. 287
| Decision Date | 17 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 287 |
| Parties | MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Jacob A. Walker, of Opelika, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case is in two counts as follows:
'1. The Grand Jury of said County charge that before the finding of this indictment, Jimmy L. Moore, alias Pete Moore, did with intent to steal break into and enter the uninhabited dwelling house of Hugh Smith;
Demurrers were overruled as to each count. The court, also, refused the general affirmative charge as to each count. The jury returned a general verdict of guilt as charged in the indictment.
The first count of the indictment follows substantially the code form, and it is unquestionably sufficient. Evans v. State, Ala.App., 41 So.2d 615.
Ordinarily, a general verdict is referable to a good count in the indictment which is supported by the evidence. This rule, however, is without application if the general affirmative charge is requested as to each count and the evidence does not warrant a submission of the case to the jury under each of the counts. A contrary holding would deprive the appellant of full review of a presented question. Hawes v. State, 216 Ala. 151, 112 So. 761; Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404; Brasher v. State, 21 Ala.App. 309, 107 So. 727; Jackson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 42, 31 So.2d 514, certiorari denied 249 Ala. 348, 31 So.2d 519.
As we pointed out in the recent case of Moore v. State, Ala.App., 44 So.2d 262, Section 86, Title 14, Code 1940 describes and treats of 'uninhabited dwellings' as a specific class. Count 1 of the instant indictment charges burglary of this enumerated class of building. It is sufficient without the added allegations that goods, wares, merchandise, etc. were kept therein for use, sale, or deposit. Evans v. State, supra.
Under a logical interpretation of the statute, it cannot be said that the term 'other building' is expected to include 'uninhabited dwelling.' It is clear that it should be placed in the group that is described under the second clause of the statute, and this without reference to the descriptive class 'uninhabited dwellings' which is denoted under the first clause of the statute.
In the case at bar the evidence discloses that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cozart v. State, 8 Div. 934
...38 Ala.App. App. 39, 80 So.2d 495 (aff'd 262 Ala. 468, 80 So.2d 501); Jackson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 42, 31 So.2d 514; Moore v. State, 35 Ala.App. 160, 44 So.2d 789; Smith v. State, 39 Ala.App. 673, 107 So.2d Nor does Supreme Court Rule 45 avoid reversal here. In a civil action, Jordan v. He......
-
Weaver v. State, 6 Div. 850
......389, 85 So. 785; Williamson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 92, 179 So. 398; Tucker v. State, 202 Ala. 5, 79 So. 303. Exceptions were reserved to a portion of the oral charge in which the ......
-
Moore v. State, 5 Div. 288
...of another house. In brief it is stated: 'The most striking difference between the two cases is the sentence. In No. 287 [Ala.App., 44 So.2d 789] the defendant was sentenced for only one year and one day, while in this case he was sentenced for a term of two years and four months, to begin ......
-
Taylor v. State, 6 Div. 997
...17 Ala.App. 550, 86 So. 143; Reeves v. State, 31 Ala.App. 226, 16 So.2d 697, cert. denied, 245 Ala. 237, 16 So.2d 699; Moore v. State, 35 Ala.App. 160, 44 So.2d 789, cert. denied, 253 Ala. 307, 44 So.2d In ruling on defendant's motion to exclude the evidence, the court stated: 'THE COURT: D......