Richardson v. State, 6 Div. 248.
Decision Date | 30 June 1938 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 248. |
Citation | 186 So. 574,28 Ala.App. 432 |
Parties | RICHARDSON v STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1938.
Reversed After Remandment Feb. 7, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.
Charlie Richardson was convicted of assault with intent to rob, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Richardson v. State (6 Div. 399) 186 So. 580.
Bealle & Mize, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The indictment charged the defendant with the offense of robbery; specifically, that he "feloniously took two five dollar bills, two one dollar bills, and one twenty dollar bill, lawful paper money of the United States of America, commonly called 'greenback,' of the value of Thirty-two & 00/100 ($32.00) dollars, the property of Will Richburg from his person and against his will by violence to his person or by putting him in such fear as unwillingly to part with the same," etc.
Before entering upon the trial the defendant interposed a demurrer to the indictment based upon two separate and distinct grounds: (1) "Said indictment charges this defendant with no offense against the laws of the State of Alabama; (2) It is not alleged or shown that the money alleged to have been taken was lawful currency of the United States of America."
In our opinion the indictment was sufficient, hence there was no error in the action of the court in overruling the demurrer thereto.
The main witness for the State, and upon whose testimony the State relied principally for a conviction, was Will Richburg, the alleged injured party. The record shows that this witness was an aged negro, and that the defendant was of the same race, though many years younger. That on the day in question these two persons, known to each other for a long time, met in the City of Tuscaloosa, and went over into the "quarters," a negro settlement, and remained together for a considerable length of time, during which it is contended the alleged offense was committed. There appears no dispute in the evidence that these two parties finally had a difficulty, but a very divergent insistence upon the part of these participants as to the details of said difficulty is disclosed.
Richburg's statement as to the occurrence complained of was in substance that the defendant said He stated, that the money he claimed to have lost was in his pocket ten or fifteen minutes before then. He further stated: On cross-examination he denied that he was drunk on that occasion, and stated, He also testified other persons were present at the time, and the closest person to him when he was hit was within a few feet of him, and stated he did not know who he was, and also, that he didn't know any of the rest of them at all. He stated, "There were not a lot of people there when I had the fight." He never testified that the defendant took his money, and no person connected with this case saw either of these parties with the money. The indictment which was found upon the testimony of this witness described the alleged missing money as being "two five dollar bills, two one dollar bills, and one twenty dollar bill." On the stand he testified that the money he had consisted of two ten dollar bills, two five dollar bills, and five one dollar bills. As will be noted there was a variance as to the description of the money in the indictment and in the testimony given by Richburg on the stand.
The testimony of the defendant and his numerous witnesses was in sharp conflict with practically every statement testified to by Richburg. All of them testified that Will Richburg was drunk and staggering, and some of them said the defendant was also drunk. The two police officers who testified for the State and who saw Richburg within a short time after the difficulty stated: Will Richburg had been drinking, and that they could smell it easily. The fight between the parties happened at the home of witness Will Harvel who saw the entire transaction. He testified, among other things, as follows:
There was other evidence of like import.
Pending the trial numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court, many of which have been assigned as error. The assignment of errors contain 82 separate and distinct grounds.
The verdict of the jury was: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to rob as charged in the indictment." By this verdict the defendant was acquitted of the offense of robbery, and was convicted of the lesser offense included in the main charge. The court sentenced him to serve an indeterminate period of imprisonment in the penitentiary of not less than four nor more than five years.
It is true, as insisted, that the verdict of the jury was not responsive to the testimony, for the testimony of Richburg, upon which this conviction rested, tended to show that he had been actually robbed of his money, a completed offense; and it may be true, as further insisted the conviction of defendant for the lesser offense was an indication that the jury entertained sufficient doubt of his guilt to preclude his conviction of the offense as charged, but convicted him anyhow of the lesser offense upon general principles, and not upon any evidence in the case. In this connection the jury acted within its province, and this court is without authority to declare otherwise. The trial court charged the jury on this point as follows: "If you have a reasonable doubt, arising out of the evidence or the lack of it, as to whether the defendant got the money; but if you are satisfied by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did assault the witness, Will Richburg with intent to rob him, then you would find him guilty of assault with intent to rob under this indictment." The jury acted upon and followed the foregoing instructions, thus exercising their exclusive right so to do. Courts, appellate or otherwise, may not substitute themselves for the juries who are the sole judges of controverted facts, and of the probative force and effect of the evidence in every case submitted to them.
In our case of Chiles v. State, 26 Ala.App. 358, 159 So. 700, this court said (page 701):
'
The foregoing statement is applicable to the case at bar, and to all criminal prosecutions. In this case we have carefully read and attentively considered the entire evidence in this case and are clear to the opinion that this appellant (defendant below) has not been accorded the fair and impartial trial, free from prejudicial error, to which, as stated, he was entitled.
It appears from the record, the court, over objections and exceptions, permitted the State to offer evidence of two separate and distinct conversations between Richburg (the alleged injured party),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dolvin v. State
...the jury or usurp their function in weighing the evidence. Autry v. State, 34 Ala.App. 225, 229, 38 So.2d 348 (1949); Richardson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 432, 436, 186 So. 574, reversed on other grounds, 237 Ala. 11, 186 So. 580 (1938). Therefore we find no error in the overruling of the defen......
-
Richardson v. State
...186 So. 580 237 Ala. 11 RICHARDSON v STATE. 6 Div. 399.Supreme Court of AlabamaDecember 15, 1938 ... Certiorari ... to Court of ... ...
-
Wilson v. State, 4 Div. 841.
... ... 4 Div. 841.Alabama Court of AppealsMay 16, 1944 ... Rehearing ... Denied June 6, 1944 ... Reversed ... on Mandate Nov. 14, 1944 ... Appeal ... from Circuit ... 322, 101 So. 780; Bedingfield v ... State, 24 Ala.App. 398, 135 So. 656; Richardson v ... State, 28 Ala.App. 432, 186 So. 574; Kennamer v ... State, 28 Ala.App. 317, 183 So. 892 ... ...
-
Blair v. State
...187 So. 645 28 Ala.App. 430 BLAIR v. STATE. 4 Div. 466.Court of Appeals of AlabamaJanuary 10, 1939 ... Rehearing ... authority to direct a verdict. Alabama Digest, Vol. 6, + 753 ... The ... appeal here is from a judgment of ... ...