Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 86 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. STATE, |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; A.H. Alston, Judge.
Robert Taylor was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Silberman & Hoskins, of Birmingham, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The first count in the indictment charges burglary and grand larceny, and the ownership of the building alleged to have been burglarized and the property stolen is laid in William R. McClure. The evidence offered by the state tended to show that the store of the Ensley Loan Company was burglarized and several watches and some jewelry stolen therefrom. The state's witness McClure on his direct examination testified that the Ensley Loan Company was a partnership of which he was a member. It was clearly the right of the defendant to cross-examine this witness as to whether the Ensley Loan Company was a partnership, and to show by such cross-examination that the witness was not a member of the firm, and nothing more than an employé of the firm. The course of such cross-examination, if successful, not only tended to impeach the credibility of the witness but tended to destroy the state's case, or at least increase the state's burden to showing that the witness had such custody of the property as would sustain the averments of ownership. If, in fact, the Ensley Loan Company was a partnership, and McClure was one of the partners, the ownership of the property was properly laid in him, and by proof of these facts the averments of the indictment as to the ownership of the property would be sustained. Code 1907, § 7147; Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 So. 806, 91 Am.St.Rep. 21. On the other hand, if McClure was not a member of the firm, but was a mere employé without possession or custody of the property, the defendant was entitled to show this to undermine the state's case; and proof that he was a mere employé would have the effect to increase the burden on the state to show that, as said employé, he had possession of the property. Adams v. State, 69 So. 357. The act of locking the building might be the mere act of a servant whose custody was that of the master. Adams v. State, supra.
It was likewise the right of the defendant on cross-examination to show the cost of the property alleged to have been stolen. The witness had testified on the direct examination as to the market value of the property; and, while the market value, and not the original cost of the property, was the correct criterion of value, the question was ultimately one for the jury, and the original cost of the property was pertinent to the question, and permissible to be shown on cross-examination.
It was permissible for the witness to state that the watch exhibited in court "looked like the watch defendant had in his possession." Mayberry v. State, 107 Ala. 64, 18 So. 219.
The names "McClure" and "McLure" are idem sonans. Oliveri v. State, 69 So. 359; Weyms v. State, 69 So. 310.
The right of a defendant in a civil case to be heard on motion to exclude all the evidence of the plaintiff after the plaintiff has rested and before the defendant has offered any evidence is denied by the Supreme Court in Mobile Light & R. Co v. Portiss, 70 So. 136, and McCray v. Sharpe, 188 Ala. 375, 66 So. 441. The ground upon which these rulings are rested is that in civil cases the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monk v. State, 3 Div. 638
...in criminal trials. Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139, 14 So. 792; Stewart Bros. v. Ransom, 200 Ala. 304, 76 So. 70; Taylor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 72, 72 So. 557; Britton v. State, 15 Ala.App. 584, 74 So. 721; Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263. The evidence is without dispute that the......
-
Wise v. Standard Oil Co. of Ind.
... ... thing that he saw was identical with the thing that he had ... previously seen belonging to the defendant ... In ... State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278, 288, the court said: ... 'Opinions or belief on questions of identity of persons ... or things, when such opinion or belief ... Co., 215 Mo.App. 564, 256 S.W ... [198 S.W.2d 1017] ... 1079; 16 C.J., pp. 750, 775, 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, ... §§ 864, 922; Taylor v. State, 15 Ala.App ... 72, 72 So. 557; Wright v. State, 156 Ala. 108, 47 ... So. 201; Schwartz v. Wood, 67 Hun. 648, 21 N.Y.S ... 1053; ... ...
-
Denton v. State
...others, that the venue had not been proven. This motion was appropriate and timely and presents the question sought to be raised. Taylor v. State, 72 So. 557; Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139, 14 So. 792. 'Proof of venue is jurisdictional and without such proof a conviction cannot be sustain......
-
Wise v. Standard Oil Co.
...Farber v. Boston Ins. Co., 215 Mo.App. 564, 256 S.W. 1079; 16 C.J., pp. 750, 775, 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, §§ 864, 922; Taylor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 72, 72 So. 557; Wright v. State, 156 Ala. 108, 47 So. 201; Schwartz v. Wood, 67 Hun. 648, 21 N.Y.S. 1053; Commonwealth v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 41......