Cobb v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cobb v. State

85 So. 870, 17 Ala. App. 479, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 134

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1920

Docket3 Div. 362.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 So. 870 (Cobb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cobb v. State, 85 So. 870, 17 Ala. App. 479, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 134 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Montgomery county for burglary and grand larceny. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of from 2 to 4 years.

[1-4] The court properly overruled the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment. This was a new charge against the defendant, and the fact that the mittimus under the former charge was.functus officio in no wise worked a discontinuance of this case. The testimony showed that the defendant was 15 years old. This being true, the confessions as made to the witness Lillian Dungee were, under Code 1907, § 6464, and the case of Bessie Felder v. State, 85 South. 868, 1 clearly not admissible against the defendant. This was the only testimony connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime.

To have allowed the testimony of the witness for the purpose of impeaching the defendant was permitting that to be done indirectly which could not be done directly.

The general affirmative charge, as requested by the defendant in writing, should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 458.

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

MERRITT, J.

The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Montgomery county for burglary and grand larceny. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of from 2 to 4 years.

[1-4] The court properly overruled the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment. This was a new charge against the defendant, and the fact that the mittimus under the former charge was.functus officio in no wise worked a discontinuance of this case. The testimony showed that the defendant was 15 years old. This being true, the confessions as made to the witness Lillian Dungee were, under Code 1907, § 6464, and the case of Bessie Felder v. State, 85 South. 868, 1 clearly not admissible against the defendant. This was the only testimony connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime.

To have allowed the testimony of the witness for the purpose of impeaching the defendant was permitting that to be done indirectly which could not be done directly.

The general affirmative charge, as requested by the defendant in writing, should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 458.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 870, 17 Ala. App. 479, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-state-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack