Williams v. State, 8 Div. 49
| Decision Date | 25 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 49 |
| Citation | 26 Ala.App. 555,163 So. 463 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1935
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; W.W. Callahan, Judge.
Leon Williams was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Wm. L. Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.
A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, with two others, was indicted and charged with robbery. The facts tending to prove the corpus delicti are undisputed and as a matter of law, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, constitute the crime as laid in the indictment.
The defendant by way of defense pleads an alibi. The question, therefore, becomes one of identity. The state's witness Norris, who was the party alleged to have been robbed, identifies the defendant as being one of the three parties who robbed him on the night of July 5, 1932. There was some evidence tending to corroborate the testimony of Norris. Per contra, there were several witnesses who testified to a complete alibi for the defendant. The evidence being in conflict, the question was for the jury and was submitted to them under proper instructions from the court.
We have examined every exception reserved by defendant on the trial. None of them constitute reversible error.
The solicitor in his argument to the jury stated the names of the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury and whose names appeared on the back of the indictment as witnesses. This statement of the solicitor was objected to by defendant, the objection overruled, the court stating: There is no law requiring the names of witnesses appearing before the grand jury to be indorsed on indictments returned, and when such endorsements are made there is no presumption that such witnesses appeared and testified, and the solicitor should not have referred to the fact that the names appeared on the indictment; but the fact as to who appeared before the grand jury in this case is so foreign to any issue involved, that we fail to see how the defendant could be injured thereby.
There is no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...having a natural tendency to influence the finding of the jury. In the opinion of our Court of Appeals in the case of Williams v. State, 26 Ala.App. 555, 556, 163 So. 463, in a somewhat analogous situation appears the 'There is no law requiring the names of witnesses appearing before the gr......
-
Lee v. State
...in a robbery prosecution as to whether appellant committed the robbery presented an issue for the jury to resolve. Williams v. State, 26 Ala.App. 555, 163 So. 463; Cowart v. State, 22 Ala.App. 300, 115 So. 145; Lewis v. State, 55 Ala.App. 131, 313 So.2d 558; Mitchell v. State, 52 Ala.App. 1......
-
American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Hammett
... ... 552 AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO. v. HAMMETT. 6 Div. 686Court of Appeals of AlabamaOctober 8, 1935 ... health. Upon this state of facts the defendant was entitled ... to an instructed ... ...
-
Fuller v. State
...32 Ala.App. 34, 21 So.2d 553. The conflict in the evidence presents a question for the jury as to appellant's guilt. Williams v. State, 26 Ala.App. 555, 163 So. 463. In Gable v. State, 31 Ala.App. 280, 15 So.2d 594, cert. den. 245 Ala. 53, 15 So.2d 600, cert. den. 322 U.S. 726, 64 S.Ct. 943......