Waters v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McCLELLAN, J.
• Citation: Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 108, 22 So. 490 (Ala. 1898)
• Decision Date: 01 February 1898
• Parties: WATERS v. STATE.

22 So. 490

117 Ala. 108

WATERS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 1, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; George E. Brewer, Judge.

M. H Waters was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he bought the beef which the state's evidence tended to show was produced by the killing and butchering of the yearling owned by one Dearman, from a negro who was carrying the beef in his wagon to Anniston; that he (the defendant) met said negro on the road, and traded with him for the yearling. It was shown that the yearling the defendant was charged with having stolen belonged to one Dearman. Upon the introduction of Holcomb as a witness for the state, he testified that he lived near the witness Dearman, in the city of Anniston, and knew the yearling which was stolen. He was asked by the state, among other things, as to his knowledge of the yearling: "What was the name of the yearling, if it had any?" The defendant objected to this question, but stated no ground of objection. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. After the defendant had testified as a witness in his own behalf, the state introduced in evidence the record of the circuit court of Calhoun county, showing that the defendant had been convicted of petit larceny in two cases, the subject of the larceny being old iron. The defendant then offered to testify that the old iron which he was convicted of stealing had been sold to him by one Louis Morris, and that in the trial of said cause Morris testified that he had sold the old iron to the defendant. The court upon objection of the state, refused to allow the defendant to so testify, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court, of its own motion, limited the argument of the counsel to the jury to two hours on each side, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "If the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant got the beef from a negro on the road, then they must acquit the defendant." (2) "If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant received the beef from another, then they must acquit." (3) "A defendant has the presumption of innocence with him through the whole trial." (4) "The jury can't convict the defendants unless they are convinced by the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the beef sold by Waters to Huggins is the same animal that was killed on the mountain, which has been testified about in this case." (5) "If, from all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt as to how the defendant became in possession of the beef, they must acquit." (6) "The court charges the jury that it is a rule of the criminal law that, in cases of doubt, it is safer to acquit than to convict; and if the jury are unable to say from the evidence in this case that they are satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that the...