Stone v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1897 |
| Citation | 115 Ala. 121,22 So. 275 |
| Parties | STONE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Talladega; John W. Bishop, Judge.
William Stone appeals from the judgment of the lower court convicting him of the crime of petit larceny. Reversed.
Knox Bowie & Dixon and James B. Newman, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charges defendant with having feloniously taken and carried away from the person of one Liddie Beverly, a silver dollar, the property of said Beverly. Section 3789 of the Criminal Code makes it grand larceny to steal "any personal property of any value from the person of another."
The proof tended to show, without conflict, that said Liddie Beverly was sitting, talking with defendant, by or near a cellar door at her father's house; that she had with her in her hand and possession, tied up in a handkerchief, one silver dollar and a one-cent piece, and got up to go in the house for dinner, and laid the money down on the cellar door or ground, near the door; that she remained away a short time, and when she returned, she saw defendant take the money from the ground or cellar door, where she left it, and run away with it; and that her brother and father pursued him but did not recover the money.
The solicitor announced to the court, that he would not ask for a conviction of grand larceny, but, under the evidence, he would ask for a conviction of petit larceny.
The defendant requested the court in writing to charge the jury, if they believed the evidence they must find the defendant not guilty. This charge the court refused to give. In its general charge, the court instructed the jury, that "if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt, [hypothesizing properly the venue and time] the defendant feloniously took and carried away the property described in the indictment, from the cellar door, or near the cellar door, and that it was the property of Liddie Beverly, then they must find the defendant guilty of petit larceny." To this part of the charge, the defendant excepted.
It is provided by statute in this state, that where one is indicted for an offense of which there are different degrees, the defendant may be found not guilty of the degree charged, but guilty of any degree of the offense inferior thereto. Cr Code, § 4482. But that principle has no application to a case of the kind before us, where the indictment must necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. State
...... State, 3 Ala.App. 71, 57 So. 493; Bradford v. State, 147 Ala. 95, 41 So. 462; Carden v. State, 89 Ala. 130, 7 So. 801; McGehee v. State, 52 Ala. 224; State v. Stedman, 7 Port. 495; Lodano v. State, 25 Ala. 64; Collins v. State, 70 Ala. 19; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133, 18 So. 206; Stone v. State, 115 Ala. 121, 22. So. 275; Gilmore v. State, 99 Ala. 154, 13 So. 536. . . A. variance between allegation and proof which does not go to. the extent of showing that the offense proved is not the. offense charged is immaterial. Meadows v. State, 136. Ala. 67, 34 So. 183. . ......
-
Rowe v. State
...charges C, D, E and F. Code 1940, T. 15, § 259, Form 79. The evidence shows no material variance as to either count. Stone v. State, 115 Ala. 121, 22 So. 275; State Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 20 Am.Dec. 66. The authorities on a variance are collected, in a criminal case, in Milam v. State, 240 Ala.......
-
State v. Savage
...... which the personal property feloniously taken is kept or. stored, and necessarily includes simple larceny; and, as. simple larceny embraces within its subdivisions grand. larceny, it would seem to follow, notwithstanding a conflict. in the decisions ( Stone v. State [Ala.] 22 So. 275), that, in those states in which grand and petit larceny. are designated as different degrees of the same offense,. larceny in an office, when the value of the property so taken. brings the crime within the higher grade, necessarily. ......
-
Ex parte Randle
...fundamental than the one requiring that the proof at trial must correspond with the material allegations of the indictment. Stone v. State, 115 Ala. 121, 22 So. 275; Prentice v. State, 24 Ala.App. 587, 139 So. 437; Garner v. State, 3 Ala.App. 161, 57 So. 502; Ashby v. State, 24 Ala.App. 466......
-
'n' guilty men.
...J., dissenting); Bolling v. State, 12 So. 782, 783 (Ala. 1893) (n = 1 but qualified with a "better, far better"), rev'd on other "rounds, 22 So. 275 (Ala. 1897); Harnage v. State, 274 So. 2d 333, 346 (Ala. Crim. App.) (n = "many") rev'd on other "rounds, 274 So. 2d 352 (Ala. (232) See Linds......