Odom v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 714 |
| Citation | 215 So.2d 596,44 Ala.App. 534 |
| Parties | Dewey Kenneth ODOM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
McKee & Maye, Opelika, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John A. Lockett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of grand larceny of an automobile under an indictment returned by the Grand Jury of Lee County, Alabama. After a jury trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court to a term of three years in the penitentiary.
Mrs. Gladys Mangum testified for the State that on August 15, 1967, she drove her automobile to her place of employment, a dry cleaning establishment; that she parked her car directly in front of the establishment so that she was able to see it by looking out of the front window; that she left her keys in the car; and that at about 1:45 P.M. she first noticed the car was missing, whereupon she called the police and reported the car as being stolen.
Officer Richard Murphy testified that at about 2:10 P.M. on the date in question, he observed a car parked in a driveway with the rear end extending about 'three yards' into the street and that upon investigation he found the appellant in the car 'leaning over the steering wheel.' He also testified that, having prior to this time received a report on the stolen car, he arrested appellant. The car was that of Mrs. Mangum.
On cross-examination, Murphy testified that appellant, when he found him in the car, was unconscious and that he smelled the odor of alcoholic beverages. The defense offered no testimony.
The trial court in charging the jury stated in part as follows and appellant duly excepted thereto:
In Underwood v. States, 72 Ala. 220, the Supreme Court of Alabama stated in part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eldridge v. State
...there was sufficient evidence from which to infer guilt due to the unexplained possession of recently stolen property. Odom v. State, 44 Ala.App. 534, 215 So.2d 596 (1968). Hale v. State, 45 Ala.App. 97, 225 So.2d 787, cert. denied, 284 Ala. 730, 225 So.2d 790 (1969); 9 Wigmore, Section In ......
-
McConnell v. State
... ... Such part of the charge is an incorrect statement of the law. It is well settled that the recent possession of stolen property does not raise a presumption of guilt. Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220; Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142; Odom v ... State, 44 Ala.App. 534, 215 So.2d 596; Haynes v. State, 45 Ala.App. 31, 222 So.2d 183; Graham v. State, 44 Ala.App. 554, 216 So.2d 298; Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261; Buckles v. State, 1 Div. 131, dated March 14, 1972 ... However, no exception having been ... ...
-
Franklin v. State, 4 Div. 49
...617, 259 So.2d 304, 1972; Hale v. State, 45 Ala.App. 97, 225 So.2d 787; Haynes v. State, 45 Ala.App. 31, 222 So.2d 183; Odom v. State, 44 Ala.App. 534, 215 So.2d 596. The trial court refused appellant's requested written charges Nos. 6 and 10 which are as '6. The Court charges you, there ca......
-
Hale v. State
...writing for this court to the same question in Haynes v. State, 45 Ala.App. 31, 222 So.2d 183, 6 Div. 386, relied on Odom v. State, 44 Ala.App. 534, 215 So.2d 596; Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142; and Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d 261, in holding that the trial court erred in......