Piano v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1909 |
| Citation | 49 So. 803,161 Ala. 88 |
| Parties | PIANO v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; A. C. Howze, Judge.
Mrs Piano was convicted of receiving stolen property, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion, as are the exceptions and objections to testimony. The statement of the solicitor objected to is as follows: "The Huston Biscuit Company could have received thousands of dollars if they had dropped these prosecutions."
The following charges were given at the instance of the state
The following charge was refused to the defendant: "(1) The court charges the jury that the unexplained possession of personal property recently stolen does not, as a matter of law, raise a presumption of guilt."
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted for receiving stolen goods, the property of the Birmingham Fireworks Company. Ordinarily evidence of any other offense than that specifically charged is inadmissible in criminal cases. But, guilty knowledge being of the gist of the offense charged against the appellant, evidence that on other occasions about the same time she had received other articles from the same thief knowing that they were stolen, is relevant to show a scienter in respect to the property laid in the indictment. Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Whar. Cr. Ev. § 44; Jones, Ev. § 143.
A witness for the prosecution, having testified to finding the goods charged to have been received by the defendant in a store kept by the defendant and her husband, was allowed, over the defendant's objection, to testify that at the same time he found other property in the store which he recognized as stolen property. This was the statement of a fact as upon the knowledge of the witness, and in connection with the evidence subsequently introduced tending to show a receipt of the other goods with knowledge that they, too, had been stolen, was relevant and material to the issue of defendant's guilt under the indictment.
So, too, the witness' statement that "we missed some fireworks from the company's store" must be taken as the statement of a fact within the knowledge of the witness. The witness was then asked if the other stolen goods had the mark or brand of the Huston Biscuit Company upon them. This question was objected to on the ground that it called for secondary evidence. Witnesses have been permitted to give parol evidence of inscriptions on banners exhibited at public meetings, of a license hanging on a wall, of marks on clothing and other articles of personal property, on the ground that things of the sort are so evanescent and transient that the incapacity of the party to produce them may be assumed. Whar. Cr. Ev. § 167.
On cross-examination the witness testified that he had not personal knowledge of the larceny of the goods which he had found at the store. Thereupon the defendant, to quote the bill of exceptions, "moved the court to exclude from the jury the other stolen property in the store of defendant that belonged to the Huston Biscuit Company," on the ground that it was hearsay. This motion the court overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. That part, at least, of the testimony which had reference to the marks or brands upon the goods, was not hearsay. The motion was addressed to all that testimony of the witness which related to the Huston Biscuit Company's property. It was incumbent upon the defendant when invoking the action of the court by her motion, to separate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
... ... inferences to be deduced from the evidence; and, where it ... transgresses the legitimate bounds of argument under the ... evidence, it should be excluded under the rules that obtain ... as to the nature and character of such argument. Piano v ... State, 161 Ala. 88, 92, 49 So. 803; Gibson v ... State, 193 Ala. 12, 69 So. 533. The matter sought to be ... challenged by objection was beside the evidence and of a very ... injurious character and probable effect upon the jury ... In view ... of the importance and only ... ...
-
Peterson v. State
...the evidence in the case, and, where it exceeds the same, should be excluded. Du Bose v. State, 148 Ala. 560, 42 So. 862; Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803. It be well to advert to the observations contained in Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476, as to limitations of arguments of counsel: "A......
-
Fordham v. State
...on the State in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every material ingredient of the crime charged. Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803 (1909); Robertson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 117, 53 So.2d 575, cert. denied, 256 Ala. 113, 53 So.2d 576 Where, as here, jurors insist on......
-
Leverett v. State
...in evidence was directed to all of the tobacco, some of which, having been identified as the stolen goods, was competent. Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803. It not error for the court to permit the state to show that one McArdle was employed as a switchman in the yards of the Western ......