Randolph v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 1894
• Citation: 14 So. 792,100 Ala. 139
• Parties: RANDOLPH ET AL. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 792

100 Ala. 139

RANDOLPH ET AL. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 8, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Wilcox county; John Moore, Judge.

William Randolph and Penny Randolph were convicted of burglary, and appeal. Reversed.

Upon the trial of the case, as is shown by the bill of exceptions the state proved the corpus delicti. It was also further shown that the defendants resided about three-quarters of a mile from the store which was burglarized, and that tracks of a horse and mule were followed the morning after the burglary to the road leading in the direction of the defendants' house; that the defendant William Randolph owned a mule at that time. It was also further shown that, the day after the burglary, the house of the defendants and other houses in the vicinity of said store were searched for the goods and merchandise stolen from the store, but none of said goods were found; that, about 12 or 13 months after the burglary was committed, several articles of merchandise stolen from said store were found in the dwelling house of the defendants; and that the defendant Penny Randolph made several conflicting statements in attempting to account for how she came in possession of said articles. The bill of exceptions then contains the following statement: "That the proof was that, at the time of the search when said goods were found in the house of defendants, the defendant Billy Randolph was not present, but was confined in the jail of Wilcox Co., Ala., on charge of another offense; that he was not present when his said wife made the statements attempting to account for the possession of said goods; that a few days before said search was made, in which said goods were found a day or two after defendant was committed to jail, a prior search of said house was made, when none of said goods were found, the said goods having been found in the house after said defendant was committed to jail as aforesaid, and there being no evidence up to this time to show that any of said goods were ever in his possession, or in the possession of his wife, Penny, until after he had been put in jail as above stated." Upon this evidence, the state having announced that it had closed its case, the defendants moved the court that they be not required to further defend said case, and that the court excuse them from offering evidence to account for the possession of said goods, arguing to the court that there was not evidence enough to require them to offer evidence in defense, or to give an explanation of the possession of said goods, because said possession was not shown to be recent after the said burglary. The court overruled this motion, and decided that the defendants were placed upon their defense. and to this ruling the defendants excepted. The defendants then moved the court "to exclude all the evidence offered by the state from the jury and to discharge the defendants," which motion the court overruled, and the defendants excepted.

Howard & Jones, for appellants.

Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN J.

William Randolph and Penny Randolph were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of burglary of the store of one Cobb. The bill of exceptions recites that it contains substantially all the evidence in the case. It does not contain any evidence that the offense was...