Yarber v. State
| Decision Date | 14 July 1978 |
| Citation | 375 So.2d 1229 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Attorney General. (Re: Samuel YARBER v. STATE of Alabama). S.C. 2622. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William J. Baxley, Montgomery, Atty. Gen. and James L. O'Kelley, Birmingham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.
Frederick A. Erben, Birmingham, H. Powell Lipscomb, III, Bessemer, for respondent.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed. The opinion of that court affirmatively shows that the evidence was disputed whether Miles was an accomplice. We can appreciate how the Court of Criminal Appeals arrived at its determination, as a matter of law, that Miles was an accomplice because this is a bizarre case. Yarber and Miles, alternatively, as the opinion shows, try to pin the offense on the other.
Yarber was tried first. During his trial, which is the one we are now reviewing, Miles put all the blame on Yarber. Miles was later tried. At Miles' subsequent trial, Yarber, although he had previously testified at great length at Miles' preliminary hearing and had there put all the blame on Miles, when called as a state's witness at Miles' trial, refused to testify. In fact, he would not even state his name. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Miles v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 801 (1977), cert. den., Ala., 343 So.2d 806 (1977), stated:
It is readily apparent that Miles denied his participation, not only at Yarber's trial, but also in his subsequent trial. In Childs v. State, 43 Ala.App. 529, 194 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
... ... 19 A.L.R.2d 1352, 1381 (1951). Even where a witness has been jointly indicted with the defendant and convicted before the defendant's trial, if the witness denies his participation at the defendant's trial, the issue of whether he was an accomplice is a question of fact for the jury. Yarber v. State, 375 So.2d 1229 (Ala.1978) ... Additionally, the fact that Craig was an admitted accomplice to the robbery does not "require the conclusion as a matter of law that he was an accomplice to the killing of Mr. Green." Tinsley v. State, 395 So.2d 1069, 1078 ... ...
- Yarber v. State
-
Harris v. State
... ... He freely admitted his guilt through his plea of guilty and voluntarily testified to his participation in the robbery. The question of whether Adams is an accomplice is not one of disputed fact. Yarber v ... State, 375 So.2d 1229 (Ala.1978); Washington v. State, 401 So.2d 236 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 241 (Ala.1981); Jacks v. State, 364 So.2d 397 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 406 (Ala.1978) ... Having found that Adams was an accomplice as a matter of ... ...
-
Siler v. State
... ... "Even where a witness has been jointly indicted with the defendant and convicted before the defendant's trial, if the witness denies his participation at the defendant's trial, the issue of whether he was an accomplice is a question of fact for the jury. Yarber v. State, 375 So.2d 1229 (Ala.1978)." ... Id ... The trial court properly held that C.P. was not an accomplice as a matter of law and presented this decision to the jury ... The appellant argues there were two defects in the trial court's charge to ... ...