Segars v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 99. |
| Citation | 97 So. 747,19 Ala.App. 407 |
| Parties | SEGARS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Charles P. Almon Judge.
Arthur Segars was indicted with two others for the theft of a Ford car. From a judgment convicting this defendant, he appeals. Affirmed.
George E. Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
One of the defendants, Elmer Pelt, admitted guilt; another, Willie Sharpston, testified for the state, and was by order of the court discharged. This defendant was alone placed on trial.
There are many exceptions noted to the introduction of testimony all of which we have considered, but none of them constitute reversible error, or present questions of merit, except as shall hereinafter appear.
Those exceptions based upon the objection that an accomplice cannot testify until a conspiracy has been shown to exist are not well taken, and the cases of Loper v. State, 205 Ala. 216, 87 So. 92, and Beech v. State, 203 Ala 529, 84 So. 753, are not in point. In the cases cited the effort was made to prove the declarations of alleged conspirators, before evidence of a conspiracy had been introduced, which prima facie established a conspiracy. A very different case is the one at bar. Here the corpus delicti is proven, and one of the guilty parties testifies to the facts, and identifies the participants, including himself.
This testimony shows him to be an accomplice in the commission of a felony, and, recognizing the fraility of human nature and proneness of one caught in the meshes of the law to lay his crime on another, if by so doing he may escape a just punishment, both by the common law and by statute (Code 1907, § 7897) it is provided that a conviction for felony cannot be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. This corroboration must be of some fact which will strengthen or make stronger the testimony of the witnesses so testifying to the fact of the participation of the defendant in the crime charged. Malachi v State, 89 Ala. 134, 8 So. 104; Wallis v. State, 18 Ala. App. 108, 90 So. 35.
The testimony of Sharpston was that the three of them indicted got together about 8 o'clock at night; went together along the road to Russell's house, where he watched, and the other two got the car. The evidence further showed that it was in the country on the night of April 7th. About 8 o'clock on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slayton v. State
... ... even with the Key place and turned them on'--was ... sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the witness ... Wilson to authorize its submission to the jury." ... To the ... same import are the decisions in Horn v. State, 15 ... Ala.App. 213, 72 So. 768; Segars v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 407, 97 So. 747; Harris v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 67, 105 So. 389 ... This ... corroborative evidence may be by the proof of circumstances ... tending to prove the truth of material features of the ... testimony of the accomplice and is not confined, in ... ...
-
Kimmons v. State, 4 Div. 509
...supra; Commander v. State, 28 Ala.App. 42, 178 So. 241 (1938); DeGraaf v. State, 34 Ala.App. 137, 37 So.2d 130 (1948); Segars v. State, 19 Ala.App. 407, 97 So. 747 (1923). This conclusion is substantiated by a reading of those cases announcing the general rule. Additional facts and circumst......
-
Hubbard v. State
...v. State, 89 Ala. 134, 8 So. 104; Smith v. State, 230 Ala. 413, 161 So. 538; Berry v. State, 231 Ala. 437, 165 So. 97; Segars v. State, 19 Ala.App. 407, 97 So. 747; Dykes v. State, 30 Ala.App. 129, 1 So.2d 754; Hodge v. State, 32 Ala.App. 283, 26 So.2d 274; English v. State, 14 Ala.App. 636......
-
Lindhorst v. State, 8 Div. 881
...supra; Commander v. State, 28 Ala.App. 42, 178 So. 241 (1938); DeGraff v. State, 34 Ala.App. 137, 37 So.2d 130 (1948); Segars v. State, 19 Ala.App. 407, 97 So. 747 (1923). This conclusion is substantiated by a reading of those cases announcing the general rule. Additional facts and circumst......