Franklin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Franklin v. State

78 So. 411, 16 Ala. App. 417, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 96

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket3 Div. 302.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 So. 411 (Franklin 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

Franklin v. State, 78 So. 411, 16 Ala. App. 417, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 96 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The testimony offered by the state tended to support the indictment. The cow, the subject of the larceny, was found by the owner, Sankey, in Jim Robinson’s pasture. The cow had been so recently marked that the congealed blood was still clinging to the wound on her ear. The defendant admitted that he placed the cow in the pasture, but contends that he bought her from Sam. Stephens, who brought the cow to defendant’s place in the nighttime, and offered to sell her to defendant. Stephens was examined as a witness by the state, and denied that he had any such transaction with the defendant.

[1] Charge 4 pretermits consideration of all the evidence, and gives undue prominence to the defendant’s testimony. Hardeman v. State, 14 Ala. App. 35, 70 South. 979; Lane v. State, 14 Ala. App. 40, 70 South. 982; Finney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 39, 65 South. 93.

[2] Charges 1, 2, and 3, the affirmative charge as to each count and as to the entire case, were properly refused.

We do not feel justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738; Southern Ry. Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 South. 796.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The testimony offered by the state tended to support the indictment. The cow, the subject of the larceny, was found by the owner, Sankey, in Jim Robinson’s pasture. The cow had been so recently marked that the congealed blood was still clinging to the wound on her ear. The defendant admitted that he placed the cow in the pasture, but contends that he bought her from Sam. Stephens, who brought the cow to defendant’s place in the nighttime, and offered to sell her to defendant. Stephens was examined as a witness by the state, and denied that he had any such transaction with the defendant.

[1] Charge 4 pretermits consideration of all the evidence, and gives undue prominence to the defendant’s testimony. Hardeman v. State, 14 Ala. App. 35, 70 South. 979; Lane v. State, 14 Ala. App. 40, 70 South. 982; Finney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 39, 65 South. 93.

[2] Charges 1, 2, and 3, the affirmative charge as to each count and as to the entire case, were properly refused.

We do not feel justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738; Southern Ry. Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 South. 796.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 411, 16 Ala. App. 417, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack