Vacalis v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ANDERSON, C.J.
• Citation: Vacalis v. State, 204 Ala. 345, 86 So. 92 (Ala. 1920)
• Decision Date: 03 June 1920
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 155
• Parties: VACALIS v. STATE.

86 So. 92

204 Ala. 345

VACALIS v. STATE.

1 Div. 155

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 3, 1920

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Artemis Vacalis was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed (86 So. 89) and he brings certiorari. Writ awarded, and cause reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Brooks & McMillan, of Mobile, for appellant.

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

ANDERSON C.J.

When a person stands charged with the offense of receiving stolen property, under section 7329 of the Code of 1907, it is incumbent upon the state to show, among other things, that he knew the property was stolen. Fulton v. State, 8 Ala.App. 257, 62 So. 959, and cases there cited; Collins v. State, 33 Ala. 434, 73 Am.Dec. 426. Of course, guilty knowledge may be inferred from facts and circumstances, in the absence of proof of actual knowledge. Like most facts, it may be inferred from other sufficient facts and circumstances, and if certain specific facts existed, which would charge a reasonably prudent man with notice, the trial court would be authorized to instruct the jury that they would be warranted in finding that the defendant had knowledge that the goods were stolen; but the court would not be authorized, as was done in this case, in charging the jury that the state met the burden of proof of showing knowledge by showing facts that would lead an ordinarily prudent man to believe they were stolen. This, in effect, charged the jury that the defendant had knowledge that the goods were stolen, if the hypothesized circumstances existed, when it was for the jury to determine whether or not the state met the burden of showing knowledge by proof of said facts or circumstances. So much of said oral charge as was excepted to by the defendant was not only upon the effect of evidence, but invaded the province of the jury. Collins v. State, supra.

The Court of Appeals further declined to reverse the trial court as to this erroneous oral instruction, upon the idea that, if it was error, the same was cured by giving two written charges requested by the defendant. A mere misleading oral charge may sometimes be cured by an explanatory written one but this court has heretofore held, and properly so, that an erroneous oral charge is not cured by giving a written charge which correctly covers the proposition erroneously stated in the oral charge, as the jury would not know which to heed or follow. Birmingham L. & P. Co. v. Seaborn, 168 Ala 658, 53 So. 241. Acts 1915, p. 815, does not apply to this point. It cures reversible error for refusing requested charges, when the proposition asserted is covered by given charges, or by the oral charge of the court, but does not apply to an erroneous oral charge of...