Wood v. State

Decision Date20 June 1922
Docket Number3 Div. 432.
Citation18 Ala.App. 654,94 So. 256
PartiesWOOD v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Application for Rehearing Dismissed. October 24, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Walter Wood was indicted in two counts, charging him with burglary and receiving stolen property. There was general verdict of guilty, on which judgment was rendered, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Brassell Brassell & Brassell and S. H. Dent, Jr., all of Montgomery for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

There were many objections and exceptions reserved during the trial, many of which are clearly without merit, and while we have read and considered them, as the law requires, it will serve the purpose of this appeal to treat only such exceptions as have been specifically pointed out in brief of counsel, who have therein presented every question of merit.

It is here insisted that the court erred in permitting the witness Naftel to refresh his recollection as to certain articles of merchandise alleged to have been sold to one Moncrief, and from which package a part had been stolen; but no objection was made to the questions eliciting this testimony, or to the reading of the list of articles from the bill, until after it had been read to the jury, and the defendant objected to the witness reading from the bill anything other than the property alleged to have been stolen, and this objection of defendant was sustained by the court, and no exception is reserved to any ruling of the court pertaining to this evidence. There is, therefore, nothing for this court to review.

The argument of the solicitor as to how defendant came into the possession of the articles found in his store was not the statement of a fact outside the record, but was based upon his conclusions drawn from the evidence.

That one McQueen was the yard conductor, who had charge of the making up of the train, in which was the car from which the goods were stolen; that he could move them to any place he chose; that McQueen had sole control of the car at a time when the seal therefore affixed had been taken off, so that the door could be opened; that McQueen lived in the house with defendant near the railroad yards-might well have been left in as a part of the evidence in the case, in view of the fact that a part of the stolen property was found in the recent possession of defendant;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Eldridge v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 23, 1982
    ...and the circumstances under which the property is alleged to have been acquired." 89 A.L.R.3d at 1214. See also Wood v. State, 18 Ala.App. 654, 655, 94 So. 256 (1922) (Jury may consider "the character of the merchandise, the unusual manner in which they came into his possession, his evasive......
  • Waters v. State, 4 Div. 578
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 2, 1978
    ...Proof that they were stolen by someone was all that was required, and there was ample evidence for that purpose. Wood v. State, 18 Ala.App. 654, 94 So. 256 (1922); Scott, The State sought to prove the second element listed above by a showing of several factors. Scienter, a necessary element......
  • Wertheimer v. State, 25166.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1929
    ...v. Oblaser (1895), 104 Mich. 579, 62 N. W. 732; (b) with evasive statements and unusual manner of acquisition, Wood v. State (1922) 18 Ala. App. 654, 94 So. 256; (c) with attempts at concealment and the fact that goods were being sold far below the wholesale price, Nakutin v. U. S. (C. C. A......
  • Wertheimer And Goldberg v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1929
    ... ... Cas ... 902-3; Gunther v. People [1891], 139 Ill ... 526, 28 N.E. 1101; People v. Harris [1892], ... 93 Mich. 617, 53 N.W. 780; People v ... Oblaser [1895], 104 Mich. 579, 62 N.W. 732); (b) ... with evasive statements and unusual manner of acquisition ... ( Wood v. State [1922], 18 Ala.App. 654, 94 ... So. 256); (c) with attempts at concealment and the fact that ... goods were being sold far below the wholesale price ... ( Nakutin v. United States [1925], 8 F.2d ... 491, 269 U.S. 585; Gibbs v. State [1900], ... [201 Ind. 582] 130 Ala. 101, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT