Potter v. State
| Citation | 9 So. 402,92 Ala. 37 |
| Parties | POTTER v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1891 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from circuit court. Escambia county; J. P. HUBBARD, Judge.
The second charge referred to in the opinion, asked for by defendant and refused by the court, was as follows: "The jury may look to the fact that Charlie Calhoun [a witness for the state] is a paid detective in determining the weight to be given his evidence, and if they find he is contradicted by other credible witnesses to such an extent that the testimony cannot be reconciled, and such interest and contradiction generates in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, then the verdict should be not guilty."
J M. Whitehead, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted and convicted under section 3786 of the Civil Code. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty on the first count of the indictment, which charges that the accused, with intent to steal, broke into and entered the dwelling-house of George Arnold, a motion was made in arrest of judgment, and overruled. The motion is based on the insufficiency of the first count, consisting, as is contended, in the omission to aver that the dwelling-house was a house in which goods, merchandise, or other valuable thing was kept for use, sale, or deposit, or that it was specially constructed or made to keep such goods merchandise, or other things of value. In Crawford v State, 44 Ala. 382, it was said that section 3695 of the Revised Code was clearly divided into two members, separated by the word "or," and a semicolon; the first making burglary to consist in breaking into and entering, with intent to steal or commit a felony, "a dwelling-house, or any building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, though not forming a part thereof;" and that these were the facts to be stated in an indictment under the first member of the section. It was also held that the words, "in which any goods, merchandise, or other valuable thing is kept for use, sale, or deposit," as employed in the statute, were applicable only to the houses mentioned in the second member,-"any shop, store, warehouse, or other building." It appearing that in section 3786 of the present Code, as printed, a comma is used where a semicolon was used in section 3695 of the Revised Code, it is insisted that this change of punctuation shows that the legislature intended to abrogate the division of the section into two members, as construed in Crawford v. State, supra, and to make the characteristics, as to the contents of the house, and the uses to which it is put, or for which it was constructed or made, applicable to all the houses named in the section. Whether section 3786 should be repunctuated, if need be, and construed as a continuation of the prior division into two distinct members, or whether such change of punctuation should be regarded as controlling the interpretation of the statute, it is unnecessary to decide. The original manuscript of the Code, as adopted by the legislature, governs the printed copy. By reference to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. State
...... with footprints, and testify to the result of such. comparison; the distinction being the accused is not required. to "do any positive act in connection therewith.". Davis v. State, 131 Ala. 10, 31 So. 569; Chastang v. State, supra; Cooper v. State, supra; Potter v. State, 92 Ala. 37, 9 So. 402; Pate v. State, . 150 Ala. 10, 18, 43 So. 343; Williams v. State, supra; 12. Cyc. 400, 402. . . It. must be noted in this connection that compulsion of. self-crimination (denied by the Constitution) must be. directed to the accused person in ......
-
Hubbard v. State
...not clothing or shoes taken from defendant, but his own testimonial or communicative act in refusing to make the tracks. In Potter v. State, 92 Ala. 37, 9 So. 402, a burglary case, evidence that defendant's foot fit the tracks was held admissible where defendant was carried at his own reque......
-
Swain v. State
...of the law does not, in our opinion, conclusively show that appellant did not voluntarily permit the tests to be made. See Potter v. State, 92 Ala. 37, 9 So. 402.' The evidence in this case leads to a similar conclusion. There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant was coerced ......
-
Hunt v. State
...... that inquiry. . . In. this State a person cannot be required against his will to do. any positive act tending to operate as evidence against. himself in a criminal case. Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110, 4 L.R.A. 766, 11 Am.St.Rep. 84; Potter v. State, 92 Ala. 37, 9 So. 402; Davis v. State, . 131 Ala. 10, 31 So. 569; Burks v. State, 240 Ala. 587, [248 Ala. 225] 200 So. 418; Smith v. State, 247. Ala. 354, 24 So.2d 546. . . But it. does not violate this rule for another person to do an act. against the will of ......