Porter v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 1 |
| Citation | 27 Ala.App. 441,174 So. 313 |
| Parties | PORTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1937
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.Q. Smith, Judge.
L.B Porter was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Conforming to Porter v. State (Ala.Sup.) 174 So 311.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Porter v. State (6 Div 120) 174 So. 315.
Perry & Powell, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, with whom there were two others, separately indicted, was charged with the larceny of an automobile, and, in the second count of the indictment, with buying, receiving, concealing, etc. This defendant on his trial was convicted under the second count of the indictment, largely upon the testimony of one of his confederates who testified to the taking and to the details of the crime. It is insisted by defendant that the testimony of this accomplice was not corroborated in such manner as would authorize a conviction, and that therefore the defendant was entitled to the general charge, which was refused. We find no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there was ample evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice so as to authorize the verdict of guilty. Facts and circumstances testified to by other witnesses connected this defendant with the crime in such manner as to render the testimony of the accomplice admissible for consideration by the jury in arriving at its verdict.
We find the following as a part of the bill of exceptions: "The Court: 'Make a note of this, Mr. Reporter, that after the Court commenced his oral charge to the jury the defendant presented twelve written charges, Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, which under the rules of this Court, the Court refuses to pass on or give to the jury, and the defendant excepts.' " What the rules of the circuit referred to contain this court is not advised, as they nowhere appear in the bill of exceptions; but, whatever they are, or may be, they could not change the rule of practice as provided by the Legislature of this State and contained in section 9509 of the Code of 1923, which declares: "Charges moved for either party must be in writing, and must be given or refused in the terms in which they are written; and it is the duty of the judge to write 'given' or 'refused,' as the case may be, on the document, and sign his name thereto; which thereby becomes a part of the record."
We do not, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...to make reasonable rules for the conduct of the business of the court. Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40. In Porter v. State, 27 Ala.App. 441, 174 So. 313, this court noted that an act of the legislature superceded any local rule of court that was contrary to it. However, it was q......
-
Moore v. State, 7 Div. 137
...of written instructions. In answer to a certified question by this court to the Supreme Court, the latter tribunal held in Porter v. State, 234 Ala. 11, 174 So. 311, that such a rule was in violation of the provisions of the code section cited See also, Glenn v. State, 27 Ala.App. 433, 174 ......
-
Rogers v. State, 2 Div. 832
...for by Title 7, Section 273, Code 1940. Northcot v. State, 43 Ala. 330; Jackson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 601, 139 So. 576; Porter v. State, 27 Ala.App. 441, 174 So. 313, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 11, 174 So. However, in this case no exception was reserved to the court's refusal to consider th......
-
Lee v. State
...313; James Ed Glenn v. State (Ala.App.) 174 So. 315; response by Supreme Court to certification by Presiding Judge C.R. Bricken, Porter v. State, 174 So. 311; Collins v. State, supra. (2) But whether such error on the part of the trial court in declining to consider and indorse "given" or "......