Fuller v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Fuller v. State

48 Ala. 273

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 48 Ala. 273 (Fuller 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

Fuller v. State, 48 Ala. 273 (Ala. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

PECK, C. J.

We think both the charges asked by the defendant should have been given.

The evidence was insufficient to prove that the house had been broken and entered by the defendant; it did not prove that the house had been -broken at all. Nor was there any evidence that the carpet bag had been in fact stolen. In other words, no larceny was proved.

To make the possession of goods evidence against a party charged with stealing them, the larceny must first be proved, and then the possession of the stolen goods may be presumptive evidence of guilt, unless the party found in the possession of goods can show how he came by them.

Neither did the evidence prove that the house, charged to have been broken and entered, was a dwelling house. A dwelling house is the apartment, building, or cluster of buildings, in which a man with his family resides. — 1 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 295.

The evidence did not show that any family resided in the house charged to have been broken and entered. It clearly was not the dwelling housé of the witness Bobbins, and the evidence failed to prove that Peyton Borge resided in the house.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

PECK, C. J.

We think both the charges asked by the defendant should have been given.

The evidence was insufficient to prove that the house had been broken and entered by the defendant; it did not prove that the house had been -broken at all. Nor was there any evidence that the carpet bag had been in fact stolen. In other words, no larceny was proved.

To make the possession of goods evidence against a party charged with stealing them, the larceny must first be proved, and then the possession of the stolen goods may be presumptive evidence of guilt, unless the party found in the possession of goods can show how he came by them.

Neither did the evidence prove that the house, charged to have been broken and entered, was a dwelling house. A dwelling house is the apartment, building, or cluster of buildings, in which a man with his family resides. — 1 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 295.

The evidence did not show that any family resided in the house charged to have been broken and entered. It clearly was not the dwelling housé of the witness Bobbins, and the evidence failed to prove that Peyton Borge resided in the house.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Ala. 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-state-ala-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack