Young v. State
| Decision Date | 22 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 20. |
| Citation | 101 So. 469,20 Ala.App. 219 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E. S. Lyman, Judge.
Howard Young was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Young, 101 So. 470.
Walter S. Smith, of Lineville, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges the larceny of "$100 in United States currency, the exact description of which is to the grand jury unknown." The proof tended to show the theft of $100 in greenbacks, $30 of which was in five dollar bills. This was no variance. Turner's Case, 124 Ala. 59, 27 So. 272; Gady's Case, 83 Ala. 51, 3 So. 429; Duvall's Case, 63 Ala. 12. It was relevant and legal for the state to prove by the witness Noah Knowles that he lost (or missed) some money from his place at a time prior to the indictment, and the answer that, "I lost $100.00," was competent, as tending to prove the corpus delicti.
It is a recognized rule of law that, where an indictment alleges the description of money as being unknown, to the grand jury, a conviction cannot be sustained, where the proof shows that the description was in fact known to the grand jury. This would be a variance entitling defendant to an acquittal under such indictment. James v. State, 115 Ala. 83, 22 So 565. But the fact that one of the witnesses, who appeared before the grand jury, knew the description of the money would not be relevant. The question would be, Did he so inform the grand jury? The defendant's counsel informed the court that he expected the witness to testify that, at the time he was before the grand jury, witness knew the description. The objection of the state was properly sustained.
The fact, if it be a fact, that state's witness Triplett had made an affidavit that he and two others, naming them, had made whisky, and later denied it, was an attempt to impeach Triplett on an immaterial matter, and if the court erred in sustaining the state's objection on the specific ground that there was higher evidence of the fact, such error was without injury to the defendant.
As to whether Howard Young could have heard a conversation between Gus Young and state's witness A. Knowles, inside the jail, could not affect defendant's case, as the conversation referred to related entirely to Gus, and not to defendant.
There was sufficient evidence upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, 1 Div. 456
...63, 61 So. 434, 441 (1913); Fountain v. State, 98 Ala. 40, 13 So. 492, 494 (1893); or because they were argumentative. Young v. State, 20 Ala.App. 219, 221, 101 So. 469, cert. denied, Ex parte Young, 20 Ala.App. 273, 275, 101 So. 775, cert. denied, Ex parte Young, 212 Ala. 123, 101 So. 778 ......
-
Allison v. Fuller-Smith & Co.
... ... Charges in this form have been repeatedly condemned ... Bessemer Liquor Co. v. Tillman, 139 Ala. 462, 36 So ... 40; Dorsey v. State, 134 Ala. 553, 33 So. 350; ... Goldstein v. Leake, 138 Ala. 573, 36 So. 458 ... [20 ... Ala.App. 219] The case, on the evidence, was ... ...
-
DeFranze v. State, 5 Div. 17
...to the grand This would result in a variance between the averment and the proof. James v. State, 115 Ala. 83, 22 So. 565; Young v. State, 20 Ala.App. 219, 101 So. 469, cert. denied 211 Ala. 614, 101 So. The question is not whether Mrs. Harris knew the exact denominations of the bills, but w......
-
Sanders v. State, 6 Div. 82
...States of America, a more particular description of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown . . .' In the case of Young v. State, 20 Ala.App. 219, 101 So. 469, this court said: 'It is a recognized rule of law that, where an indictment alleges the description of money as being unknown, ......