Roberts v. State, 8 Div. 871.
Decision Date | 08 April 1930 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 871. |
Citation | 23 Ala.App. 489,127 So. 677 |
Parties | ROBERTS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Milo Moody, Special Judge.
Frank Roberts was convicted of aiding a prisoner to escape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
O. M Rains, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
No briefs have been filed by appellant or by the state. This appeal is from a judgment of conviction wherein the defendant (appellant) was adjudged guilty of the offense of aiding a prisoner charged with a felony to escape from the county jail of Jackson county, Ala., said judgment being in accord with the verdict of the jury.
The evidence presented a question of fact for the determination of the jury. It tended to show that this appellant, his wife and another woman, sister of one Frank Starling who was imprisoned in jail, entered the jail with the announced purpose of conveying to said prisoner a pair of shoes which they had in their possession at the time, and in the sole of each shoe a hack saw was concealed. The evidence showed that the saws in question were suitable to be used in sawing the bars in the jail cell, and were useful for any person to escape from jail. The deputy sheriff, to whom these parties applied for permission to deliver the shoes to the prisoner testified that, "I examined the shoes in the hall of the jail in the presence of defendant, and when I discovered the first saw, this appellant started to leave the door and I told him to hold on I would arrest him for those hack saws." This witness also testified, after proper predicate, that
The following two sections of the Code 1923, sections 4016, 4017, bear directly upon this case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fenner & Beane v. Phillips
...(Ala. Sup.) 127 So. 673, and in editor's notes, Code of 1928, § 6819. And the rule of evidence (under section 6819, Code) is thus stated (127 So. 677): "*** Proof of first part of the section makes out a prima facie case of illegality of all forbidden transactions, but, in order to give for......