Tucker v. State, 2 Div. 663.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 663. |
| Parties | TUCKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; Benj. F. Elmore, Judge.
C. M Tucker was convicted of bringing stolen goods into the State and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Pitts & Pitts, of Selma, for appellant.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Edw. B Crosland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment was in two counts. The first count was eliminated. The second count charged that the defendant feloniously took and carried away in the State of Mississippi, one cow, the personal property of Mattie Wilson, and brought said cow into the County of Marengo in this State, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
The evidence introduced by the State tended to prove that Mattie Wilson, who resided in Meridian, Miss., owned a light cream colored Jersey cow of a certain description. The cow was stolen from her yard on the night of June 28, 1938, and was found in the possession of W. L. Ford in Marengo County, Alabama, about three weeks afterwards. The identity of the cow was not disputed. Ford purchased the cow from the defendant (appellant here) on or about July 18, 1938, for $27.50; the cow at that time being in the pasture of one Preston Glass. The sale took place in the presence of said Preston Glass. There was evidence tending to prove that the cow had been brought from Meridian, Miss., in a truck owned by the defendant, or in a truck driven by defendant, about the time of the asportavit.
The testimony of the defendant was to the effect that he traded a spotted cow to Preston Glass for the cow in question; and, he further testified, that he had not been in Mississippi at the time the cow was stolen. The defendant admitted selling the cow in question to Ford.
The principal point of contention here is that the court erred in refusing to allow counsel for defendant to ask the State's witness, Ford, on cross examination, the following question: "Did Mr. Glass take charge of the spotted cow?" Defendant's counsel argues, at length that this was error on the part of the court to his prejudice but no authority is cited, and we are clear to the conclusion that the question called for a conclusion on the part of the witness; and, for this reason, if for no other, the ruling of the court was free from error. True, the witness Ford had testified the purchase of the cow was made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGowan v. State
..."Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal."); Tucker v. State, 28 Ala.App. 492, 494, 188 So. 276, 277 (1939) (prosecutor's statement, "I believe he [defendant] is guilty" was a "mere expression of opinion by the solicitor" ......
-
McWhorter v. State
...`Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal'); Tucker v. State, 28 Ala.App. 492, 494, 188 So. 276, 277 (1939) (prosecutor's statement, `I believe he [defendant] is guilty' was a mere expression of opinion by the solicitor' an......
-
Johnson v. State
...‘Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal.’); Tucker v. State, 28 Ala.App. 492, 494, 188 So. 276, 277 (1939) (prosecutor's statement, ‘I believe he [defendant] is guilty’ was a ‘mere expression of opinion by the solicitor’ ......
-
Hunt v. State
...'Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal.'); Tucker v. State, 28 Ala.App. 492, 494, 188 So. 276, 277 (1939) (prosecutor's statement, 'I believe he [defendant] is guilty' was a 'mere expression of opinion by the solicitor' ......