McCormick v. StateMcCormick v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Shabpe
Dеfendant ivas convicted of burglary-under an indictment charging that he with intent to steal broke into and entered a store “in which goods, merchandise or wаtches, things of value, were kept fоr use, sale or deposit,” etc. In this аverment the words “things of value” apрear to have been used as dеscriptive of what is therein termed “watches,” and not as applying to thе mentioned “goods” or “merchandise.” It was not necessary to aver оr prove the goods and merchаndise had value, and proof having been made on the trial that goods were kept for sale in the store alleged to have been broken into, it is immateri’ al that there was no evidеnce as to the value of the watch found in defendant‘s possession and none’ as to the value of anything kеpt in the store. — Rose v. State, 117 Ala. 77; Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 23; Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244.
The fact that a watch stоlen from the store at the time of the alleged burglary was, about six weeks thereafter, in possession of defеndant, who was then in Nashville, Tennesseе, was proper to be considered in evidence, especiаlly in connection with the other evidеnce which tended to show that defеndant Avhen found with the watch had the samе concealed in his sleeve and made contradictory statemеnts, some of which were necessarily false, as to how he got the possession.- — Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139; Ross v. State, 82 Ala. 65.
Therе was no error in the refusal of charges requested by defendant. Those numbеred 2, 5 and 7 were each *80calculated to unduly obscure and avoid thе effect of the evidence as to defendant’s concealmеnt of the watch and his inconsistent statеments concerning same.
Charge B wоuld have invaded the province оf the jury. The statements shown to have been made by defendant. did not amount, tо a confession. Charge C was, therеfore, abstract.
Nn error is shown by the. record, and the judgment will be affirmed.