Nickerson v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 715 |
| Citation | 119 So. 243,22 Ala.App. 640 |
| Parties | NICKERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; James A. Hines, Judge.
Corb Nickerson was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Jas. W. Strother, of Dadeville, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant and Briggs Nickerson were jointly indicted on a charge of having feloniously taken and carried away two bales of cotton of the value of $350. The evidence without conflict tends to prove that Briggs was the principle, and, if guilty at all, this defendant was an accomplice.
The material ingredients of the offense of larceny included the felonious taking which involves the intent to steal. That being the case, if this defendant aided in the taking of the cotton under the honest belief that the cotton belonged to Briggs, or that the cotton belonged to Briggs' mother and that he (Briggs) was acting as agent for her in hauling the cotton off, then this defendant would not be guilty. Declarations made by Briggs to this defendant, at the time of the taking, as to who owned the cotton, and his agency concerning it, were a part of the res gestae and admissible as tending to show the intent of this defendant at the time he assisted in hauling the cotton. The rulings of the trial court in excluding this testimony on behalf of defendant were erroneous and prejudicial. Erskine v. State, 21 Ala.App. 307, 107 So. 720; Terry v. State, 21 Ala.App. 100, 105 So. 386; Vincent v. State, 20 Ala.App. 637, 104 So. 686.
For the errors committed by the court in excluding testimony above referred to, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morissette v. United States 8212 10, 1951
...weighed against an admitted taking of property. Others of like purport are Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 163 So. 394; Nickerson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 640, 119 So. 243; People v. Williams, 73 Cal.App.2d 154, 166 P.2d 63; Schiff v. People, 111 Colo. 333, 141 P.2d 892; Kemp v. State, 146 Fla.......
-
Smith v. State
...to that effect. Indeed, our own appellate courts supported the theory. Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 163 So. 394; Nickerson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 640, 119 So. 243; Mitchell v. State, 32 Ala.App. 467, 27 So.2d 30; Id., 248 Ala. 169, 27 So.2d 36. True, the rush of modern civilization, with i......
-
Powell v. Bingham
...166 Ala. 657, 51 So. 943; Tiller v. State, 10 Ala.App. 45, 64 So. 653; Brown v. State, 21 Ala.App. 214, 107 So. 29; Nickerson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 640, 119 So. 243; Pelham v. State, 23 Ala.App. 359, 125 So. Dillard v. State, 27 Ala.App. 50, 165 So. 783; Hanson v. State, 27 Ala.App. 147, 16......
- Sullivan v. State