Motes v. State

• Decision Date: 19 August 1924
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 194.
• Citation: Motes v. State, 20 Ala.App. 195, 101 So. 286 (Ala. App. 1924)
• Parties: MOTES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

101 So. 286

20 Ala.App. 195

MOTES v. STATE.

8 Div. 194.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

August 19, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; James E. Horton, Jr. Judge.

Andrew Motes was convicted under an indictment charging burglary grand larceny, and receiving stolen property, and he appeals.Reversed and remanded.

W. H Long, of Decatur, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

There was a general verdict of guilty by the jury.The indictment against this appellant, defendant in the court below contained three counts, charging separately the offenses of burglary, grand larceny, and receiving stolen property (felony).

On the trial of this case it was shown without dispute that the store of R. L. Henderson, near Somerville, Morgan county, Ala., was broken into and entered on the Saturday night before the first Sunday in August in the year 1921, and that a large amount of goods or merchandise or clothing was on that occasion feloniously taken and carried away.The first witness introduced by the state was the alleged injured party, Henderson, who testified to the above-stated facts, and also that he was away from home on the night in question, and did not know who it was that had burgarized his store.He further testified that, about three weeks thereafter, he secured search warrants and found large quantities of his goods, which had been stolen from his store on that occasion, at Will Blankenship's house, and at Hezie Blankenship's house, each of whom live about four miles from his store.As to this defendanthe testified that he could not say that he ever saw the defendant with any of the goods, and of his own knowledge he did not know that the defendant contracted with any one to break into his store; that the defendant did not have any of the gun shells, to his knowledge; and that he did not get any of the recovered stolen goods, enumerated by him, off of the defendant, nor did he get any of it from where the defendant was staying.In other words, by the evidence of this witness the corpus delicti was clearly shown, but there was nothing in any part of this witness' testimony which even tended to connect this defendant with the commission of the offense.

The only evidence adduced upon this entire trial which even tended to connect this defendant with the commission of the offense charged was that of the second state witness introduced, Mrs. Will Blankenship, at whose house the major portion of the stolen articles were found and recovered.So far as this defendant's participation in the offense complained of, her testimony is wholly without corroboration from any source; and under her own evidence this witness was an accomplice in the commission of the offense.The facts testified to by her, under the law, clearly make her an accomplice.She testified she was present at her home on the Saturday...