Roberson v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1899
• Citation: 26 So. 645,123 Ala. 55
• Parties: ROBERSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 645

123 Ala. 55

ROBERSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Cullman county; Ed B. Almon, Judge.

Luther Roberson was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial of the case the evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged, and that he brought the cow to the city of Cullman, and sold her to a butcher. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he purchased the cow alleged to have been stolen from a man who brought it to his house, and that he (the defendant) did not know, at the time of purchasing the cow, that it had been stolen. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf testified that he never saw one Andy Justice as he brought the cow to town for the purpose of selling her. This was all the testimony in the bill of exceptions in reference to Any Justice. The bill of exceptions contains the following recital: "In the argument of the cause before the jury one of the defendant's counsel started to make the statement that the defendant had testified that he did not pass Andy Justice on the road on the morning that he took the cow to town, and the state's attorney had laid a predicate to impeach said testimony of said defendant, and although said witness Justice was sworn as a witness and placed under the rule, the state failed to put him on the stand to impeach the testimony of the defendant, and that it was a circumstance to show that the defendant told the truth. The solicitor objected to this statement, and the court refused to permit it to be made to the jury, and defendant then and there excepted to the court's ruling." In this court a motion was made by the attorney general for a dismissal of the appeal, on the ground that there was no judgment of conviction shown by the record. The recital of the judgment entry, necessary to an understanding of the decision on this point, is sufficiently shown in the opinion.

J. J Curtis and F. E. St. John, for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The judgment entry, after reciting the verdict of guilty returned by the jury, then proceeds as follows: "On this, the 30th day of March, 1899, the defendant, being brought into open court and asked by the court if he had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be passed upon him says nothing. It is therefore considered by the court that the defendant be, and he hereby is,...