Vandergrift v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1907 |
| Citation | 43 So. 852,151 Ala. 105 |
| Parties | VANDERGRIFT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1907.
Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.
John Vandergrift was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted, jointly with another, for the felonious taking of a watch of the value of $150, the property of John Betro. The evidence for the state tended to show that the witness thought the least present value of the watch was $50, although he did not know the market value of the watch. Another witness said that, without knowing the market value of the watch, in her opinion it was worth $150. This is practically all the evidence in regard to the value. At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant requested the following charge which was refused: "The question for the jury to determine in this case is, does the evidence show beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the larceny of the watch as charged in the indictment? and the jury are not authorized to convict him for any action on the defendant's part done or committed in regard to the watch subsequent to its being stolen." He was convicted of the offense of grand larceny and sentenced to the penitentiary for 18 months. The defendant, testifying for himself, stated that he was asked to assist in looking for the watch, and that he agreed to do so, and found the watch over the storeroom among some old jugs and things that were setting around.
Charles L. Bromberg, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, and his reliance for a reversal of the judgment, to which he insists, is that there was no legal testimony adduced from which the jury were warranted in finding the value of the property alleged to have been taken to be over $25. The provision in section 5049 relative to the value of the subject of the larceny is for the purpose of distinguishing the greater from the less offense--grand from petit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McMickens v. State
-
Tanner v. State
...non-experts, and market value is not the sole criterion of a value sufficient to sustain a conviction of grand larceny. Vandegrift v. State, 151 Ala. 105, 43 So. 852, 855; Cohen v. State, 50 Ala. Mrs. Jefferies testified she had owned all of the property for a considerable length of time; t......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co.
...given an opinion as to value. Southern R.R. v. Morris, 143 Ala. 628, 42 So. 17; Lewis v. State, 165 Ala. 83, 51 So. 308; Vandegrift v. State, 151 Ala. 105, 43 So. 852. was no error in sustaining the plaintiff's objection to the questions to the witness Hester as to the amount of insurance o......
-
Bell v. State
...the value of the property is the factor to be decided for the determination of whether the larceny was grand or petit. Vandegrift v. State, 151 Ala. 105, 43 So. 852; Cain v. State, 56 Ala.App. 505, 323 So.2d 390, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 395, 323 So.2d 391. Furthermore, the fact that Hagedorn......