Moulden v. State
| Citation | 258 So.2d 915,47 Ala.App. 573 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 129 |
| Parties | William MOULDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John D. Cates, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charges grand larceny of a typewriter. Jury trial resulted in judgment and sentence of two years imprisonment; hence this appeal.
The State's evidence consisted of testimony of two police officers who, on November 30, 1970, while on active duty, did receive a call to go to the main office of the Salvation Army in Montgomery, Alabama, which had requested assistance. Upon arrival at the Salvation Army office, one of the employees advised that 'a colored person had stolen a typewriter.' The officers found the stolen typewriter approximately forty yards from the front door of the Salvation Army office in an alley. Thereafter, accompanied by two employees of the Salvation Army, the two officers began to patrol the general area and apprehended the appellant. He was identified by both Salvation Army employees and placed on the back seat of the police car with the typewriter. Following the reading of a Miranda warning from a card carried by the officers (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), they then questioned the appellant who stated 'he wanted to trade it for something.' The appellant was taken to police headquarters and there a warrant was sworn out by Mrs. Jane Hilary, the receptionist, at the Salvation Army office, charging the appellant with grand larceny of the typewriter.
At trial the State presented the testimony of one Lillie Mae Matthews, who identified the appellant as leaving the front door of the Salvation Army building on the date in question, in a hurry, with a typewriter in his hands.
Also testifying for the State was Mr. David New, an assistant to Major Lewis at the Salvation Army office, who identified the typewriter in question as belonging to the Salvation Army office at Montgomery, and that this was taken on the date in question from the receptionist's office. The typewriter was then placed in evidence.
Defense counsel at the conclusion of the State's evidence moved for a directed verdict which was denied by the able trial judge. He also moved for a dismissal of the charges against the appellant on the basis of an alleged denial of a speedy trial and also the failure of the State to have an indictment returned at the February 1971 Term of the Grand Jury of Montgomery County rather than the May 1971 Term.
The State's evidence showed that the sheriff's office had been looking for the address of Lillie Mae Matthews, and had not been able to locate her in time for an appearance at the February 1971 Term, but she did testify at the May 1971 Term. Also, as a 'basis for the alleged denial for a speedy trial,' was the failure of the State to call the party who swore out the warrant, the receptionist at the Salvation Army office. The State countered by showing that Mrs. Hilary was with her husband who was stationed on the Island of Okinawa in military service. Also, defense had questioned failure to call a Mr. John Dawkins, the other employee of the Salvation Army who had been in the police vehicle; he was shown to be in the Veteran's Hospital at Gulfport, Mississippi, for treatment.
Nowhere in the record is any contention made by the appellant that the testimony of the two former Salvation Army employees would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMurphy v. State
...of the taker to convert it to his own use, or to deprive the owner thereof. Higgs v. State, 113 Ala. 36, 21 So. 353; Moulden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 573, 258 So.2d 915; Armstrong v. State, 49 Ala.App. 396, 272 So.2d 603." See also, Jones v. State, 56 Ala.App. 444, 322 So.2d 735; Volume 13A, A......
-
Tidmore v. City of Birmingham
...delay on appeal. Harmon v. State, 48 Ala.App. 521, 266 So.2d 325, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 744, 266 So.2d 328 (1972); Moulden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 573, 258 So.2d 915 (1972). III The appellant contends that he was denied the effective use of his peremptory challenges because the trial court d......
-
Hodges v. State
...appellant, prior to trial date, to bring to the court's attention his alleged denial of a speedy trial. We quote from Moulden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 573, 258 So.2d 915, which states the applicable '. . . Further, the record does not reflect that any effort was made prior to trial date to hav......
-
Diamond v. State
...rule on this question in Alabama is as stated in Washington v. State, 45 Ala.App. 173, 227 So.2d 805, and later in Moulden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 573, 258 So.2d 915: 'a demand for a trial or objection to postponement of trial, or some other effort to secure a speedy trial on the part of the ......