Ash v. State

81 Ala. 76
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 81 Ala. 76 (Ash v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ash v. State, 81 Ala. 76 (Ala. 1886).

Opinion

SOME NVILLE, J.

— The defendant is indicted for conveying into the county jail an instrument, described as a horse-shoe rasp, with the intent to facilitate the escape of one Jasper Towns, a prisoner lawfully confined therein, under a charge of burglary. — Code 1876, § 4130. The evidence shows that Towns not only consented to the act, but voluntarily procured it to be done. Upon the trial of this case, Towns was introduced as a witness against the defendant, and the question is raised whether he was such an accomplice in the crime charged against the defendant, as that a conviction could not be had on his uncorroborated testimony. — Code, 1876, § 4895.

It is our opfinion that Towns was not an accomplice in the crime charged in the indictment, which is aiding Ms (Towns’) escape. The statute strikes at the offense of one man aiding the escape of another, not that of himself, and this is [79]*79made a felony.' The test is whether the witness could have been indicted' and convicted of the offense charged, either as principal or accessory.— Bass v. State, 37 Ala. 469. It is clear that he could not, for there is no law .which makes it a felony for a prisoner to effect his own escape. In Commonwealth v. Wood, 11 Gray, 85, it was decided that a woman who procured a defendant to produce an abortion on her was not an accomplice of the defendant in the crime. This ruling was reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Boynton, 116 Mass. 343. In the latter case it is *said: She could not have been indicted as a participator in the offense, and was not an accomplice.” — 1 Whart. Or. Law (9th Ed.), § 594.

The rulings of the court were free from error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hallford v. Culliver
379 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (M.D. Alabama, 2004)
Hardy v. State
429 So. 2d 622 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1982)
Cooper v. State
393 So. 2d 495 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1981)
Mills v. State
367 So. 2d 547 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Jacks v. State
364 So. 2d 397 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Miller v. State
275 So. 2d 675 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
Brown v. State
203 So. 2d 700 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1967)
Doss v. State
123 So. 231 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Clayton v. State
123 So. 250 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Moore v. State
72 So. 596 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Ex parte Lyman
202 F. 303 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
State v. Duff
122 N.W. 829 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Hillian v. State
50 Ark. 523 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1888)
Mayor of Nashville v. Linck
80 Tenn. 499 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Ala. 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-state-ala-1886.