Morris v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 327 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 126,82 So. 574 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court; Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Walter Morris was convicted of receiving stolen property in value exceeding $25, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Hill, Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard V. Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The evidence in the case is without conflict that in November or December, 1917, a barrel of sugar weighing about 347 pounds and of the value of about $26 was stolen by one Benjamin from the warehouse of the Western Railway of Alabama, in Montgomery, Ala.; that the sugar was delivered to one Burch who was a drayman; that Burch hauled it off and disposed of it at the instigation and under the direction of one Upshaw, who was in a conspiracy with Benjamin, whereby Benjamin would steal and Upshaw dispose of the goods and the two would divide the proceeds. It was also undisputed that Benjamin had delivered to Burch other goods at other times, which were loaded on Burch's dray at the warehouse, and that Burch had taken them and disposed of them. These other goods consisted of boxes of shoes, overalls, and a bundle of overalls. In all this thieving, Benjamin, who was a white man, and Upshaw, a negro, used Burch and his dray to convey the goods away from the freighthouse and to dispose of them. The fact that Burch was acting under the direction of Upshaw, another negro, in hauling quantities of goods from the freighthouse to places not controlled or owned by Upshaw, and delivering them to other parties, without asking any questions, would certainly be sufficient facts from which a jury could draw the conclusion that Burch, as well as the other two, was in the conspiracy, or that he was particeps criminis with them. That being the law, and it being admitted that Benjamin and Upshaw were guilty and that the crime was a felony, if the jury should believe from the evidence that Burch was also guilty, the defendant could not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of either one or all three of the parties above named.
In other words, Benjamin and Upshaw are admittedly guilty of the larceny of the goods charged to have been received by the defendant; if defendant received the goods at all, there is no doubt of his guilt. The fact that defendant did receive the goods rests entirely and solely on the uncorroborated testimony of Burch. If therefore Burch had a knowledge of the fact that the goods were stolen and with that knowledge he aided or abetted in the crime, Burch would certainly be an accomplice of Benjamin and Upshaw, and if, with this guilty knowledge and in the furtherance of the common design, he delivered the goods to defendant, who, the evidence shows would have been guilty if he received them, Burch would also be an accomplice of defendant in that he was aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime with which he was charged. Besides, the crime of "larceny" is the felonious taking and carrying away of chattels, an every person who, with a guilty knowledge, aids, and abets in the taking and carrying away, is guilty of the larceny and of every crime committed in the furtherance of the common purpose. That is to say, if this defendant received these goods under such circumstances as to make him guilty of receiving stolen property, then Benjamin, Upshaw, and Burch were all equally guilty with him, although they could have been indicted and convicted of the larceny instead of the crime charged against the defendant, and, if Burch had knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. State, 6 Div. 169
...Under this statute, using one accomplice to corroborate another accomplice gives a quantitative sum of zero plus zero. Morris v. State, 17 Ala.App. 126, 82 So. 574; Evans v. State, 42 Ala.App. 587, 172 So.2d 796; People v. White, 62 Hun. 114, 16 N.Y.S. 571. In the gestative stage those who ......
-
Evans v. State
...the occasion of their coming into evidence. Another accomplice's testimony may be cumulative but cannot be corroborative. Morris v. State, 17 Ala.App. 126, 82 So. 574. The third enquiry relates to the tenor of the testimony, both that given by the accomplice and that which is offered to cor......
-
Pitts v. State
... ... 6,§ 6; Pierson v. State, 99 Ala. 148, 13 So. 550 ... A ... conspiracy may and often can only be proven by circumstances ... and actions. Marler v. State, 68 Ala. 580 ... Conspiracy ... vel non is a jury question; and a wide latitude is allowed in ... proving it. Morris v. State, 17 Ala. App. 126, 82 ... The ... evidence of the girl's father as to her appearance and ... condition immediately after she was rescued from the men who ... had debauched her was clearly admissible. The only other ... question in the record is the refusal of the affirmative ... ...
-
Green v. State
...everything said, done, or written by either of the conspirators in the execution or furtherance of their common purpose. Morris v. State, 17 Ala.App. 126, 82 So. 574. Testimony of the Highway Patrolman James Fowler that the appellant, J. C. White, and J. D. Armstrong were seen by him togeth......