Tyra v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 584 |
| Parties | TYRA v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Joe Tyra was indicted on two counts for burglary and grand larceny. He was convicted on the burglary count, and from the judgment he appeals. Affirmed.
C.E. Mitchell, of Hamilton, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
On the trial the defendant demurred to the grand larceny count, the court sustained the demurrer, and the case proceeded to trial on the burglary count.
During the examination of Rayburn, the party whose house was alleged to have been burglarized, the witness was asked this question by the state: "After this money was missing, did he come any more?" In answer to this question the witness said "The defendant only visited me twice after the time the money was missing, and I sent for him both times." The defendant objected to the question and moved to exclude that part of the answer, "I sent for him both times." It have been shown that the defendant was a frequent visitor to the house and on terms of confidence and friendship with the owner prior to the burglary, a sudden breaking off of these visits immediately after the burglary was a circumstance admissible in evidence as tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. Pitman v. State, 148 Ala. 612, 615, 42 So. 993. It was for the jury to say whether the consciousness of a wrong committed caused the defendant to avoid the friend whom he had injured. This is a human characteristic not to be ignored in the administration of justice, and is but a recognition of the rule, "The guilty flee when no man pursueth."
It was shown that at the time of the burglary there was a satchel stolen, containing four $20 gold pieces, one $5 gold piece, 111 pennies and some other money. The defendant moved to exclude from the jury the fact that there were 111 pennies, and excepted to the court's refusal to do so on the ground that it was not shown that the pennies were lawful money of the United States. The defendant was not indicted for the theft of the pennies, but for the burglary of the house, and it was competent to describe everything stolen at the time.
It was also competent to show that on the night of the alleged burglary witness heard the door close, and that the dog barked and ran back towards the defendant's house. These were relevant circumstances, taken in connection with other evidence, in establishing a burglary and the defendant's connection therewith. As fixing the time of the burglary, it was competent for the state to show when the satchel containing the money was missed from the house alleged to have been burglarized. All of the unusual noises heard in and about the house alleged to have been burglarized on the night of the alleged burglary, such as the opening of a door, the slamming of a door, the barking of the watchdog, the direction in which the dog ran in its apparent pursuit of some person--all of these facts were proper to go to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...of Appeals held that the articles described in the above paragraph were properly admitted in evidence under the holdings in Tyra v. State, 17 Ala.App. 92, 82 So. 631, and Allen v. State, 8 Ala.App. 228, 62 So. In the Carter opinion appears the following reference the Buchanan case: 'Appella......
-
Wildman v. State
... ... We consider that there was no evidence to support Wildman's conviction of assault with intent to murder nor of the burglary of Merchants Grocery Company. Nelson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 121, 192 So. 594. We distinguish Tyra v. State, 17 Ala.App. 92, 82 So. 631, as to No. 5340 ... Grand larceny and burglary are of the same kindred of crimes. Where the identical transaction is the foundation, a verdict of guilt of one excludes a like finding of the other. Lawson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 333, 33 So.2d ... ...
-
Bills v. State
...been recognized by this Court which has held that the identity of articles stolen may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Tyra v. State, 17 Ala.App. 92, 82 So. 631. Lack of positive identification affects only the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Smith v. State, 282 Al......
-
Drinkard v. Commonwealth
...to identify this article as an article which had been stolen from Mrs. Cooper's garage or anywhere else. 2. See, also, Tyra State, 17 Ala.App. 92, 82 So. 631; Cline State, 21 Ariz. 554, 192 P. 1071; Gunter State, 79 Ark. 432, 96 S.W. 181, 116 Am.St.Rep. 85; State Wright (Del. Ct. of Gen. Se......