Savage v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 111 |
| Citation | 12 Ala.App. 116,68 So. 498 |
| Parties | SAVAGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wilcox County; B.M. Miller, Judge.
Wright Savage was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The plea of former jeopardy sets out the fact of the indictment defendant's arraignment and plea thereto on November 4 1912, the introduction of witnesses, the verdict of the jury finding him guilty, and the fact that the judgment of guilt had been reversed and remanded because of a variance between the allegation of the indictment and proof and the reindictment of defendant by a subsequent grand jury, and that the trial sought to be entered upon was for burning the same building at the same time, in the same manner, and proof by the same witnesses as on the former trial.
J. Paul Jones, of Montgomery, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The former judgment of conviction having been annulled at the instance of the defendant (see Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999), his plea of former jeopardy was without merit. 1 Mayf.Dig. 490, § 12, and authorities there cited.
Besides the motion to strike the plea and the court's ruling on the motion do not appear in the bill of exceptions, and when not so shown, such ruling is not presented for review on appeal. Mouton v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 So. 602; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 114, 33 So. 831.
The facts testified to by one of the state's witnesses, who was the first person to arrive on the scene of the fire, that some cane fodder and chaff on the top of some cotton bales was on fire that had not been on the cotton the evening before the fire occurred early the next morning, and that the fire had not reached the ground, but was blazing upward from the cane fodder and chaff on top of the cotton bales and had caught the boards of the barn, taken in connection with the general surroundings and description of the property burned and the time of night or early morning that the fire started, all showing an improbability of accidental burning, were sufficient to furnish an inference that the fire was the intentional result of human agency, in other words, that the fire which destroyed the barn was of incendiary origin.
The threats made by the defendant and his ill will towards the owner were admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing a motive. Hinds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 177
...as to the effect of granting a motion for new trial by the trial court, see Reynolds v. State, 1 Ala.App. 24, 55 So. 1016; Savage v. State, 12 Ala.App. 116, 68 So. 498, the weight of authority and the best considered opinions hold that where there is a trial on the merits under a valid indi......
-
Worrell v. State, 4 Div. 302
... ... The indictment in this cause clearly charges the appellant with arson in the second degree by the express terms of the statute. Title 14, Section 24, Code of Alabama 1940; Faulk v. State, 23 Ala.App. 213, 123 So. 104; Savage v. State, 8 Ala.App. 334, 62 So. 999, cert. denied, 184 Ala. 1, 63 So. 1006; Smith v. State, 29 Ala.App.[54 Ala.App. 269] 227, 194 So. 702; Jackson v. State, 145 Ala. 54, 40 So. 979 ... The record discloses in line with instructions of the trial court in the oral charge the ... ...
-
Corbett v. State
...as to the effect of granting a motion for new trial by the trial court, see Reynolds v. State, 1 Ala.App. 24, 55 So. 1016; Savage v. State, 12 Ala.App. 116, 68 So. 498, the weight of authority and the best considered opinions hold that where there is a trial on the merits under a valid indi......
-
Cunningham v. State
...the result of human agency, of incendiary origin, and therefore afforded the necessary inference to establish the corpus delicti. Savage v. State, 68 So. 498; Winslow State, 76 Ala. 42; Granison v. State, 117 Ala. 22, 23 So. 146. Threats made by the defendant, or ill will exhibited by him, ......