Rogers v. State
Decision Date | 19 March 1953 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 495 |
Citation | 259 Ala. 124,65 So.2d 531 |
Parties | ROGERS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Beddow & Jones and John A. Jenkins, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
This indictment against the defendant contained two counts, the first charging grand larceny and the other charging defendant with the offense of embezzlement. The jury's verdict was under the second count.
The basis for review and reversal of the Court of Appeals as stated in the petition for certiorari is the following utterance in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 65 So.2d 525:
'We do not consider that this argument is meritorious.
[Italics supplied.]
The charge in the indictment is based on the incident of December 15, 1949, in which Mrs. Holtzclaw delivered to the appellant $3,500 for the purchase of 'call stock' to be issued by the Alabama Gas Company. As to this incident the opinion of the Court of Appeals observes:
'It is obvious from the evidence that Mrs. Holtzclaw turned her money over to this appellant temporarily for one specific purpose, and that was to buy 'call stock.' The jury was fully warranted in concluding that the giving of a note was nothing more than a trick or design to hide appellant's illegal design, and a mere incident in the broader fraudulent scheme. Under such circumstances it cannot properly be said that Mrs. Holtzclaw intended to, or did part with the title to her money.
In the light of these utterances we construe the opinion of the Court of Appeals as holding, if all the elements of the offense of embezzlement are present in the evidence and the jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty, though some of the elements of other kindred crimes are also present.
A clear statement of the law of embezzlement is found in Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585, which is as follows:
'Embezzlement is said to be 'a sort of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hinds v. State
...to the actor's own use or to deprive the owner of his property. Rogers v. State, 37 Ala.App. 8, 11, 65 So.2d 525, cert. denied, 259 Ala. 124, 65 So.2d 531 (1953); Wall, 2 Ala.App. at 173, 56 So. 57. The criminal intent involves the wrongful or fraudulent appropriation of another's money, pr......
-
Goldin v. State
...cases--and many more could be cited: Riley v. State, supra, Rogers V. State, 37 Ala.App. 8, 65 So.2d 525, certiorari denied 259 Ala. 124, 65 So.2d 531; Collins v. State, 234 Ala. 197, 174 So. 296; Wyatt v. State, 35 Ala.App. 147, 46 So.2d 837, certiorari denied 254 Ala. 74, 46 So.2d 847; Li......
-
Cox v. State
...it to his own use or fraudulently secretes it with the intent to convert it to his own use or to the use of another. Rogers v. State, 259 Ala. 124, 125, 65 So.2d 531 (1953). It is no defense to a charge of embezzlement by an agent that after the offense was completed the agent promised to p......
-
Napier v. State
...State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Eggleston v. State, 129 Ala. 80, 83, 30 So. 582; Knight v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585; Rogers v. State, 259 Ala. 124, 65 So.2d 531; Boyd v. State, 41 Ala.App. 507, 511, 138 So.2d 60; Hart v. State, 41 Ala.App. 221, 127 So.2d 390. In order to justify the su......