Scruggs v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | ANDERSON, J. |
| Citation | 51 So. 302,165 Ala. 121 |
| Parties | SCRUGGS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1909 |
51 So. 302
165 Ala. 121
SCRUGGS
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama
December 16, 1909
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell, Judge.
George Scruggs was convicted of hunting on the lands of Paul Eads without permission, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
ANDERSON, J.
The witness Eads was not positive as to when he saw the two men on his land, but thought it was after Christmas; and the fact that the witness Shaw [51 So. 303.] put the time in November, inasmuch as he was there but one time, did not necessarily show a separate and distinct offense or time from the one testified to by Eads, so as to require an election, as it was open for the trial court, sitting as a jury, to find that both witnesses referred to the same offense.
We cannot put the trial court in error for overruling the motion of defendant upon cross-examination to exclude certain parts of the testimony of the witness Eads. The motion was to exclude certain testimony on "redirect" examination, and the record fails to show a "redirect" examination of this witness.
The trial court did not err in refusing to exclude all of the state's evidence in its entirety, as it was sufficient to go to the court, sitting as a jury, to create reasonable inferences of the guilt of the defendant. Nor can we reverse the conclusion of the court. The trial court saw and heard the witnesses, and the conclusion reached was like unto the verdict of a jury, and will not be reviewed here unless plainly erroneous, and we are not prepared to say that the verdict in this case is plainly erroneous. Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 So. 720.
The judgment of the law and equity court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SIMPSON, McCLELLAN, and MAYFIELD, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama, T. & N. Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co., 6 Div. 177
...72 So. 53; Finney v. Studebaker Co., 72 So. 55; Jackson Lumber Co. v. Trammell, 74 So. 469; Woodrow v. Hawving, supra; Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302. It is insisted that no weight should be given to the decision of the chancellor upon the facts, but that the Supreme Court shoul......
-
Reeves v. State, 7 Div. 826
...sitting without a jury, on the oral testimony of witnesses, will not be reversed on appeal "unless plainly erroneous." Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302, 303 A defendant who seeks to compel the State to disclose the testimony of an alleged accomplice has the burden of proving and c......
-
Sides v. State
...without a jury, on oral testimony of witnesses appearing in court, will not be reversed unless plainly erroneous. Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302, 303 (1909). This Court is "obliged to indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial court's decision." Ex parte ......
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...578, 56 Am.Dec. 223; Barnes v. Mayor, 19 Ala. 707; Etheridge's Case, 18 Ala. 565), or by the judge in a criminal case ( Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302), or by the trier of facts on testimony given viva voce in the presence of the probate court (Nooe v. Garner, 70 Ala. 443, 446; ......
-
Alabama, T. & N. Ry. Co. v. Aliceville Lumber Co., 6 Div. 177
...72 So. 53; Finney v. Studebaker Co., 72 So. 55; Jackson Lumber Co. v. Trammell, 74 So. 469; Woodrow v. Hawving, supra; Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302. It is insisted that no weight should be given to the decision of the chancellor upon the facts, but that the Supreme Court shoul......
-
Reeves v. State, 7 Div. 826
...sitting without a jury, on the oral testimony of witnesses, will not be reversed on appeal "unless plainly erroneous." Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302, 303 A defendant who seeks to compel the State to disclose the testimony of an alleged accomplice has the burden of proving and c......
-
Sides v. State
...without a jury, on oral testimony of witnesses appearing in court, will not be reversed unless plainly erroneous. Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302, 303 (1909). This Court is "obliged to indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial court's decision." Ex parte ......
-
Andrews v. Grey, 7 Div. 847
...578, 56 Am.Dec. 223; Barnes v. Mayor, 19 Ala. 707; Etheridge's Case, 18 Ala. 565), or by the judge in a criminal case ( Scruggs v. State, 165 Ala. 121, 51 So. 302), or by the trier of facts on testimony given viva voce in the presence of the probate court (Nooe v. Garner, 70 Ala. 443, 446; ......