Reed v. State, 3 Div. 798
Decision Date | 19 December 1978 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 798 |
Parties | Thomas J. REED, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George W. Dean, Destin, Fla., for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and George W. Royer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
The appellant was indicted for bribery, convicted of an attempt to commit that offense, and fined $500.
The indictment, in pertinent part, was as follows:
The offense charged is spelled out in Title 14, § 73, Code of Ala.1940:
"Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, offer, give, or promise any money, or thing of value, testimonial, privilege, or personal advantage, to any executive or judicial officer or member of the legislature to influence him in the performance of any of his public or official duties, shall be guilty of bribery, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than ten years."
The issue in this case has been concisely stated in the appellant's reply brief:
Without elaborating on the testimony of each witness, it is sufficient to observe that ample evidence was submitted by the State which, if believed by the jury, would have supported a conviction for bribery as defined in Title 14, § 73, supra. That is, the appellant Offered or Promised a thing of value or personal advantage to a member of the legislature to influence him in the performance of his public or official duty. The evidence was conflicting, and the jury obviously was not convinced that the crime of bribery had actually been consummated, only that an attempt to do so had occurred.
It has long been held that conflicting evidence presents a jury question not subject to review provided the State's evidence establishes a prima facie case. The weight to be given such evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are likewise questions reserved for the jury. Higginbotham v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 525 (1977); May v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 335 So.2d 242 (1976).
The appellant contends that he could...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. State
...now Ala.Code Section 13-5-31 (1975). The indictment returned against this defendant is identical to the one set forth in Reed v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 872 (1978). Representative Reed was convicted of an attempt to commit the charged offense and fined $500.00. This defendant was foun......
-
Hays v. State, 1 Div. 822
...of the law, and shall in no manner limit or expand the construction of any such section." § 1-1-14, Code of Alabama 1975; Reed v. State, 372 So.2d 872 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 372 So.2d 876 (Ala.1979). The text of § 13A-5-33, Code of Alabama 1975, is prefaced with the jury......
-
Deep v. State, 3 Div. 391
...denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1978); McBryar v. State, 368 So.2d 568 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 575 (Ala.1979); Reed v. State, 372 So.2d 872 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 372 So.2d 876 (Ala.1979); Crowell v. State, 389 So.2d 545 The appellant argues that the evidence i......
-
Edwards v. State
...and not for th[is] Court to determine." Williams v. State, 50 Ala.App. 341, 342, 279 So.2d 145, 146 (1973). See also Reed v. State, 372 So.2d 872, 874 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), reversed on other grounds, 372 So.2d 876 The victim testified to acts of anal and oral sodomy committed upon him by the a......