White v. State, 139 So. 113 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932). · Go Syfert
Search
White v. State, 139 So. 113 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Richardson v. State, 390 So. 2d 4 (Ala. 1980)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
State.
6 Div. 212..
Alabama Court of Appeals.
Jan 12, 1932.
Published opinion
139 So. 113
1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 6
D. D. Patton and M. B. Curry, both of Carrollton, for appellant. The indictment does not charge the offense for which the defendant was convicted. The demurrer pointing out the defects should have been sustained. Sims v. State, 23 Ala. App. 387 , 126 So. 498 ; Douglass v. State, 21 Ala. App. 289 , 107 So. 791 ; Code 1923, § 4556 (16); Kelly v. State, 52 Ala. 361 . Evidence as to what happened at the time of the arrest some time after the alleged assault and several miles from the place of assault was not admissible. Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42 , 40 So. 312; Pitts v. State, 140 Ala. 70 , 37 So. 101. Defendant's requested charges should have been given. Chapman v. State, 78 Ala. 463 , 56 Am. Rep. 42; Code 1923, § 3303; Lyon v. State, 61 Ala. 224 . Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The indictment properly charged appellant with an assault with intent to rob. Sims v. State, 23 Ala. App. 387 , 126 So. 498 ; Douglass v. State, 21 Ala. App. 289 , 107 So. 791 ; Terry v. State, ante, p. 321, 134 So. 820 . Any conduct or declarations of the accused having relation to the offense charged, indicating his consciousness of guilt, is admissible. Palmer v. State, 15 Ala. App. 262 , 73 So. 139 ; Ex parte Palmer, 198 Ala. 693 , 73 So. 1001. Evidence of accused evading or attempting to evade arrest and the circumstances thereof are admissible. Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144 , 15 So. 278; Starling v. State, 18 Ala. App. 610 , 93 So. 221 ; Jackson v. State, 11 Ala. App. 303 , 66 So. 877. Requested charges refused to appellant are not subject to review, as it does not appear that they were authoritatively indorsed "refused" by the trial judge as required by statute. Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327 , 135 So. 571 .
Rice.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
RICE, J.

The demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. Douglass v. State, 21 Ala. App. 289, 107 So. 791; Sims v. State, 23 Ala. App. 387, 126 So. 498; Terry v. State, ante, p. 321, 134 So. 820.

We find no fault in the rulings of the court permitting testimony as to what occurred at the time of the arrest of appellant; his efforts to evade arrest, etc. Evidence as to any conduct or declarations of the • accused having relation to the offense charged, indicating his consciousness of guilt, is always admissible. Palmer v. State, 15 Ala. App. 262, 73 So. 139; Ex parte Palmer, 198 Ala. 693, 73 So. 1001; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144, 15 So. 278; Starling v. State, 18 Ala. App. 610, 93 So. 221; Jackson v. State, 11 Ala. App. 303, 66 So. 877.

It seems that under the holding of our Supreme Court in the case of Stinson v. State, 135 So. 571, 575, we are unable to review the action of the trial court in “refusing” certain written charges, appearing in the record, because “what appear in the record proper [but, here, in the bill of exceptions] as special charges were not, so far as anything appearing in the record [or anywhere else, we interpolate], authoritatively indorsed ‘refused’ * *. * by the trial judge, as required by the statute, and the mere statement of the clerk to this effect is not authorized by the statute.” Stinson v. State, supra.

The indictment charged the appellant with the offense of “assault with intent to rob.” Code 1923, § 3303. He was found, by the jury, guilty “as charged in the indictment.” His adjudication of guilt, and punishment awarded, followed, accordingly. The evidence was ample to support the verdict and judgment, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

We discover, nowhere, prejudicial error, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.