Spurlock v. State

• Decision Date: 21 July 1919
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 636
• Citation: 82 So. 557,17 Ala.App. 109
• Parties: SPURLOCK v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

82 So. 557

17 Ala.App. 109

SPURLOCK v. STATE.

8 Div. 636

Court of Appeals of Alabama

July 21, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell Judge.

Charles Spurlock was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

R.E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN P.J.

The appellant was convicted of grand larceny. The property alleged to have been taken is "two $10 bills, paper money of the United States of America." the personal property of A.L. King. King testified as a witness for the state that:

"Some money ($40) was taken from my store at night on November 23, 1918, between 10:30 and 11 o'clock p.m. I was not in the store at the time. My store and dwelling apartment are in the same building, and there is a door that leads from the store into the dwelling apartment. At the time the money was taken I was in the dwelling. I did not see the defendant before the money was taken. When I left the store to go into the dwelling side, the money was in the cash drawer. I left some one in the store. When I got back the money was gone and I saw the defendant. He was not in the store when I went out, but was there when I returned and missed the money. He was at the end of the counter and about four feet from the cash drawer from which the money was taken. No one else was in there besides him. I am positive that one or more $10 bills were taken from the cash drawer. There were also one or more $5 bills taken. The balance was in silver. The defendant was at the end and he went out the way I came in. Later on I saw him in an automobile in front of my store. The car had just driven up, and Harry Weaver and Floyd Graves were with him in the car. The officers had come up in the meantime and they arrested him and carried him to town."

The evidence further tended to show that the defendant was searched by the officers and the money alleged to have been stolen was not found on his person. It also tended to show that he had no opportunity of disposing of it before he was searched.

It is not shown how much, or approximately how much, money was in the cash drawer before the alleged larceny, or what amount was left there after this alleged larceny, and the testimony of the witness is manifestly uncertain as to the number of bills taken. The evidence was sufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury, and we are not able to say that it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.

During the examination of King, he was asked by the solicitor "Did you get the money back?" and the defendant objected to this question and the court said: "Well, if he got it back from the defendant, he can state it. Did you get from the...