Williams v. State
| Citation | 105 Ala. 96,17 So. 86 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1895 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas N. Arrington, Judge.
Massey Williams was convicted of stealing a cow, and appeals. Affirmed.
On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions after the state had shown by the evidence that, after Massey Williams had sold the cow which he was accused of stealing she was claimed from the purchaser by the rightful owner, and that the purchaser went to see the defendant, and told him that the cow had been stolen, counsel for the defendant asked the purchaser, who was examined as a witness, what the accused said in reference to his possession of the cow, when told that she had been stolen. The bill of exceptions states that "the conversation here sought to be elicited occurred several hours after the owner had claimed the cow from the purchaser, and several hours after the defendant had sold the cow." The solicitor objected to the question asked by the defendant's counsel, and upon the court's sustaining the objection the counsel for the accused stated to the court that he expected to show by this witness "that, immediately upon being informed by witness that the cow had been stolen, that the accused at once replied that 'George Williams had brought the cow to his house the night before, and got him to take her to Mt Meigs and sell her for him, and that if the cow had been stolen he did not know it."' Thereupon, the same question was asked, and the defendant duly excepted to the court's sustaining the state's objection thereto. This is the only question presented on this appeal.
E. P Morrisett, for appellant.
W. C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Exculpatory declarations of a defendant charged with crime are never admissible in his favor unless they are within, and constitute a part of, the res gestae of some situation condition, or fact which is itself relevant to the issue of guilt vel non. In larceny and kindred offenses, the possession by the defendant of the subject-matter of the offense-the property taken-soon after the commission of the crime is a fact relevant to the issue, and, if unexplained, raises a presumption-of greater or less strength, as the possession is near to or remote from the time of the offense-that the defendant is guilty. His declarations explanatory of his possession in such case are admissible solely upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuykendall v. Edmondson
......504 (action of trespass to. personalty); Kinston Supply Co. v. Kelly, 200 Ala. 151, 75 So. 899 (for destruction of landlord's lien);. Williams v. Noland, 205 Ala. 63, 65, 87 So. 818 (for. redemption). . . In. special pleas 2 to 8, inclusive, are averred facts attempting. to ...The facts averred and on which. are sought to be rested the elements of self-defense-freedom. from fault and retreat (Madry v. State, 201 Ala. 512, 78 So. 866)-were properly alleged in some, if not in. all, of said pleas. This is not the fact as to the. sufficiency of averment, ......
-
Hill v. State
...... cases forbid the introduction in evidence of self-serving. declarations and acts of the defendant, and the principle is. sustained by a long line of authorities in this state. Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 595, to Hill v. State, 156 Ala. 3, 46 So. 864; Williams v. State, 105 Ala. 96, 17 So. 86. The declarations sought. to be introduced did not come within the rule of. Goforth's Case, 183 Ala. 66, 63 So. 8. . . The. facts that the defendant had been "accused of selling. liquor," and "that three indictments were pending. against the ......
-
McGuire v. State
...the matter called for could be no more than an exculpatory declaration of the defendant that was no part of the res gestæ. Williams v. State, 105 Ala. 96, 17 So. 86; Fergeson v. State, 134 Ala. 63, 70, 32 So. 760, Am. St. Rep. 17. The defendant had been examined as a witness in his own beha......
-
Powell v. State
...70, 37 So. 101; Harkness v. State, 129 Ala. 71, 30 So. 73; Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63, 32 So. 760, 92 Am. St. Rep. 17; Williams v. State, 105 Ala. 96, 17 So. 86; v. State, 156 Ala. 3, 46 So. 864. The witness T. W. Adams was unable to identify the time inquired about in the question aske......