Young v. State

• Decision Date: 12 April 1906
• Parties: YOUNG v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 656

147 Ala. 687

YOUNG v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 12, 1906

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Roy Young was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This was a prosecution for larceny of a certain sum of money from the room of one Willy. The defendant requested the following charges: (1) The general affirmative charge. (2) "The fact, if it be a fact, that the defendant left Oxford, Ala soon after the larceny is alleged to have been committed, is only a circumstance, to be considered along with all the other evidence as to his guilt, and the defendant is entitled to have the jury consider the fact, if it be a fact, that he returned to Oxford, Ala., before his arrest, as a circumstance tending to show innocence."

Tate &amp Walker, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON J.

The testimony on the part of the state shows that the money charged to have been stolen, to quote the language of the witness, "was taken from the pocketbook out of his (Willy's) pants pocket." Furthermore, there was other circumstances tending to show this fact. This testimony also tends to show that Willy was unable, on account of illness, during the period of time intervening between when he was last known to have had the money and a discovery of its loss or taking, to leave his room alone. It further tends to show that, a few days prior to the discovery of its loss or taking, defendant saw the money in Willy's possession and that on Monday morning, just preceding the discovery of its loss on that day, he left the comunity, gave up his employment with Willy without excuse or cause, although he promised on leaving the house the evening previous, where Willy was boarding, to return that night to continue the discharge of his duties as nurse of Willy. It is true the testimony also tends to show that other persons had access to Willy's room and had opportunity to steal the money. But the weight and credibility of all these tendencies was for the determination of the jury The inferences to be drawn from them, as well as their probative force, was for the jury, and not for the court. The jury may have been reasonably satisfied, from all the circumstances shown by the testimony that Willy's money was stolen from his room and that defendant committed the larceny. This being true, and the venue being proven, the...