Farzley v. StateFarzley v. State
*1 appellant upon the of tlie conviction only, accomplices of which tended adduced other evidence was appellant (defendant) with connect offense. commission of the stated, fel- defendant was As and, provisions ony, section under the con- in order to secure felony,
viction of commission connect the defendant upon must have been adduced of the offense reason a convic- trial of this ¡uncor- felony had on the cannot accomplices only. roborated in this entire considered, carefully and, no evi- read dence, accomplices, was other than that tended to connect offered which Parnell, Florence, Fred S. ap- offense, her con- with the commission pellant. ' be sustained. viction therefor cannot error For should held. trial court have so indicated, from of conviction reversed, appeal taken is which this cause remanded. and remanded. Reversed Carmichael, Gen., Atty.
A. A. for the State. v. STATE. FARZLEY 34. Appeals of Court of Alabama. 19, 1935.
March April 16,
Rehearing Denied
SAMFORD, Justice. detectives, Fason, Two Little and to pro- negroes burglarize cured two the store- they did, house of Mr. which un- supervision der Little and Fason about m. From 3 a. storehouse away groceries, took and carried tobacco, cigarettes, previ- etc. Under a arrangement ous between Fason and this tobacco, cigarettes, snuff were sold and delivered to this de- morning his store on the who made the deliv- agreed ery price 8:15 a. m. at an about $15, paid which was to him that night. negroes amount Fason Of this
388 according testi- the who his own and other to to the $7.50 each and $3.75 mony by accomplice. procur- was an Fason city of Florence city the commission of committed; is ed to be Fason foregoing the employed. The whom he was stolen; procured goods Fason the to be and is and Fason testimony the of Little delivery to de- goods made of the the except the fact the toas corroboration without money. the If Fa- and collected and a fendant burglarized store'was that Jenkins’ goods from guilty stealing son is not the of the were None goods taken. by him goods delivered were then the store stolen from the goods Jenkins’ and this de- to were not stolen defend- defendant possession the ever traced to goods If the convicted. fendant cannot be ant, except stated. hereinabove as stolen, were Fason and Little were then his own defendant, in as a witness The can had conviction be accomplices and no goods behalf, the having received denied testimony. Code uncorroborated on their by some and offered testified to Fason as 1923, this in There is § state- his tending to corroborate defendant the to connect r.ecord ment. goods, stoleh having received the request give, the refused to at The court Fa- the which corroborates defendant, affirmative general the cif the de- reason Little for that son and and instructed charge his charge and in oral charge. general to the fendant was entitled you the jury, de-, can convict the “Before give the refusing to For the error in. personal you believe that the fendant must by requested charge general as bought received or property of was Jenkins the cause and reversed the is buying, in or concealing, aided or that he is remanded. it stolen.” having to or reason believe Reversed and remanded. the de- part charge oral To this separately ex- excepted and also fendant On Rehearing.' cepted part: having reason to to that “Or (Code 1923, Form 90 4556) for § it was stolen.” believe every charge indictments contains al and excerpts charge from the oral ex- The legation to sustain a conviction under sec by stating in cepted to were used the court 1923, buying, 4912 jury the elements the offense etc., receiving, concealing, proper stolen (Code charged as fixed the statute and State, 175, ty. Lindsey v. 221 Ala. 128 So. 1923, 4912). indictment followed § Case, Lindsey supra, 210. The was on cer (Code in form laid' down the Code Lindsey State, of the case of tiorari v. 23 1923, 4556, and 90) charges form suffi- § 411, 209, App. simply up Ala. 128 So. and necessary ciently prov- to be the elements held the decision of this court that beyond reasonable doubt before a a en enough indictment broad to cover Having had. reason- can be conviction Lindsey charge in the statute. In the believing goods that able Case, 411, 210, 209, App. Ala. 128 So. an been stolen not element of the have held, now, supra, this court it does that charged, but constitutes an eviden- offense jury cannot be had unless the conviction fact, tiary presumption of from which the beyond doubt believe a reasonable that may justified finding are in jury purchase defendant knew the time may A not defendant guilty scienter. stolen, but had been held the receiving goods, stolen unless requested misleading have charges to been by the until state has shown evi- recognizing the amendment to not because defendant knew them to dence that authorizing a conviction if de statute stolen, but where the state been have grounds for be ordinarily lead that would an shown facts have goods to been stolen. In lieving the the .goods to believe were prudent man Case, Lindsey supra, this court said: jury find is authorized to from “ ‘Knowing that it has been stolen’ and knowledge he had the nec- such facts that believing ‘having reasonable essary guilt. Ty- a verdict of warrant synonymous; been stolen’ are that it has 495, 93; State, App. Ala. 86 So. ler v. say perhaps be more correct or it would State, 92; 204 Ala. 86 So. v. Vacalis phrase qualifies the other in such one that State, App. 575, 87 v. 17 Ala. So. Jordan 433. thing.” mean the same that sense expression above-quoted is not a cor not in with the accord According in rect statement to the record solely in that case other decisions decision was convicted Supreme All and the Court. of this court on the uncorroborated of the decisions are to the effect receiving, buying, at the defendant time etc., know the to have must every in stolen. But a conviction almost *3 inference, resting in a conviction is sustained, and will if the de- authorized reasonable for believ- fendant had How- ing that had been stolen. strong to show ever the evidence had; that defendant stolen, if believing- have been as a matter fact had not been could be no there conviction. opinion appli- extended and the
cation is overruled. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. HENDERSON. Appeals of Alabama.
Court April 16, 1935. Harsh, Roach, T. all Harsh & J. I-Iare appellee. Birmingham, for Wynn Leigh Clark, W. J. M. both of
Birmingham, appellant.