Curtis v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Curtis v. State

78 Ala. 12

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 78 Ala. 12 (Curtis 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

Curtis v. State, 78 Ala. 12 (Ala. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

CLOPTON, J.

As a general rule, evidence that the defendant has committed offenses other than those charged in [14]*14the indictment, though of a similar nature, is gprima facie inadmissible. The general rule has its limitations and exceptions. When it is material to show the intent with which the act charged was committed, to illustrate its criminality, or to identify the accused as the persou who committed the act laid in the indictment, such evidence is admissible. — Ingram v. State, 39 Ala. 247; Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405. The evidence of the circumstances under which the defendant obtained the horse that.he delivered to the owner of the mule, for the larceny of which he was on trial, falls within the exception. It tended to show the falsity of the statement of the accused, that he had exchanged the mule for the horse, and to show the intent with which he took the mule — a felonious taking.

Affirmed.

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

CLOPTON, J.

As a general rule, evidence that the defendant has committed offenses other than those charged in [14]*14the indictment, though of a similar nature, is gprima facie inadmissible. The general rule has its limitations and exceptions. When it is material to show the intent with which the act charged was committed, to illustrate its criminality, or to identify the accused as the persou who committed the act laid in the indictment, such evidence is admissible. — Ingram v. State, 39 Ala. 247; Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405. The evidence of the circumstances under which the defendant obtained the horse that.he delivered to the owner of the mule, for the larceny of which he was on trial, falls within the exception. It tended to show the falsity of the statement of the accused, that he had exchanged the mule for the horse, and to show the intent with which he took the mule — a felonious taking.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Ala. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-state-ala-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack