Wallace v. State
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 85,75 So. 633 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 123 |
| Parties | WALLACE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; A.H. Alston, Judge.
J.C Wallace was convicted of vagrancy, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Smith & Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted under an indictment charging him with being a vagrant. From the judgment of conviction he appeals, and insists that the court erred in several instances upon its rulings on the evidence and in overruling the motion of the defendant to exclude the evidence of the state on the ground that the proof was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case. It is also insisted that the court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to certain parts of the argument of the solicitor, and further that the court erred in overruling objection of the defendant to a portion of its oral charge, and also in refusing certain written charges requested by defendant.
The rulings of the court complained of, and to which exceptions were reserved, relative to the admission and exclusion of the evidence in this case, do not appear to be free from error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. Koch v. State, 115 Ala. 99, 22 So. 471; Brown v. State, 9 Ala.App. 15, 64 So. 170. However, as the case must necessarily be reversed on other propositions, it is not deemed necessary or essential to discuss in detail the several rulings of the court on these questions.
"Vagrancy" is defined by statute. Code 1907, § 7843. In the instant case it is evident from the proof offered by the state that a conviction was sought under subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 13 of said section 7843, supra, which are as follows:
It will be seen that under each of the subdivisions supra a conviction can only be had in instances where the proof shows that the defendant has no property sufficient for his support, or has not some means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood. Under the statute, however (Code 1907, § 7845), this is a defensive matter, and the burden of proof rests upon the defendant, and not upon the state, to establish the fact that the defendant has property sufficient for his support, or means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood, which, under a proper construction of this statute, means the same thing.
In the instant case it would appear that the evidence offered by the state, and upon which it relied for a conviction, also disclosed the fact, which was undisputed throughout the whole trial, that the defendant had and owned and conducted all during the period of time covered by the indictment a place of business in the city of Birmingham in which he regularly employed two to four men; that said business was conducted under a license duly granted the defendant by the city, and consisted of a soft drink stand and also a bootblack stand and that the defendant was always seen near or at his place of business, or going to or coming from his home,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. State
...the appellant made a motion to exclude the evidence on the ground that it was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Wallace v. State, 16 Ala.App. 85, 75 So. 633; Hendricks v. State, 34 Ala.App. 502, 41 So.2d The general affirmative charge was requested in behalf of the defendant, and a moti......
-
Edgil v. State
...counsel for appellant made a motion to exclude the evidence. This practice or procedure is sanctioned in criminal cases. Wallace v. State, 16 Ala.App. 85, 75 So. 633; Hendricks v. State, 34 Ala.App. 502, 41 So.2d At this time counsel included as a ground in his motion the insistence that th......
-
Williams v. State
... ... sufficiently well grounded ... [41 So.2d 608.] ... in reason and on authority to justify its adoption by this ... It ... follows that the appellant's motion for her discharge ... should have been granted. Arnold v. State, 30 ... Ala.App. 115, 2 So.2d 316; Wallace v. State, 16 ... Ala.App. 85, 75 So. 633; Satterfield v. State, 24 ... Ala.App. 257, 134 So. 30; Underwood v. State, 33 ... Ala.App. 314, 33 So.2d 379 ... The ... record presents other questions for our consideration. The ... view we have herein declared obviates the ... ...
-
Langham v. State
...238 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183; Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139, 14 So. 792; Taylor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 72, 72 So. 557; Wallace v. State, 16 Ala.App. 85, 75 So. 633. when the prosecution seeks to hold the defendant on trial as an accessory before the fact, before the acts and declarations of t......