Cox v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cox v. State

122 So. 305, 23 Ala. App. 186, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 149

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 1929

Docket4 Div. 506.

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 305 (Cox 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

Cox v. State, 122 So. 305, 23 Ala. App. 186, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 149 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant (and. another not on trial) was indicted for the offense of petit larceny; the property alleged to have been stolen was a hog of the value of $20, the personal property of one Kilpatrick. The evidence tended to show the commission of the offense and also to connect this appellant therewith. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not raised, as the affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial; neither was there a motion to exclude the evidence.

But one exception was reserved pending the entire trial, and this related to the action of the court in allowing proof by the state as to the value of the hog alleged to have been stolen. Under the simplest rules of evidence this inquiry was not only permissible, but was necessary in order to establish an essential ingredient of the offense and to prove a material averment in the indictment. There is no merit in the exception noted.

The record is regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

-Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant (and. another not on trial) was indicted for the offense of petit larceny; the property alleged to have been stolen was a hog of the value of $20, the personal property of one Kilpatrick. The evidence tended to show the commission of the offense and also to connect this appellant therewith. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not raised, as the affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial; neither was there a motion to exclude the evidence.

But one exception was reserved pending the entire trial, and this related to the action of the court in allowing proof by the state as to the value of the hog alleged to have been stolen. Under the simplest rules of evidence this inquiry was not only permissible, but was necessary in order to establish an essential ingredient of the offense and to prove a material averment in the indictment. There is no merit in the exception noted.

The record is regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

-Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 305, 23 Ala. App. 186, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-state-alactapp-1929.