Jackson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

84 So. 394, 17 Ala. App. 197, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 197

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1919

Docket3 Div. 336.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 84 So. 394 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 84 So. 394, 17 Ala. App. 197, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 197 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICICEN, J.

This defendant, who was jointly indicted with another, demanded a severance, which was granted. He was tried and convicted of the offense of burglary, and grand larceny from a railroad car, and from the judgment of conviction he appeals.

[1] There is no merit in the contention that the court erred in allowing the witness Johnson to testify as to the value ofl the tobacco alleged to have been stolen from the railroad car in question. The tobacco had been sufficiently identified as being the same tobacco found in the possession of the defendant at the time he was arrested, and it was not necessary or essential that it should have been shown that this witness was an expert. “Direct testimony as to the market value is in the nature of opinion evidence. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may testify as to value, if he has had opportunity for forming a correct opinion.” Code 1907, § 3960.

[2] Charges numbered 1, 2, and 3, requested in writing, were each properly refused. The propositions of law involved in these charges have been decided adversely to the contention of the defendant in the case of Vaughn v. State, ante, p. 35, 81 South. 417.

Charge 4 was the general affirmative charge for the defendant, and its refusal, under the evidence in this case, was clearly free from error.

' The motion for a new trial was properly overruled. Vaughn v. State, supra.

There is no .error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICICEN, J.

This defendant, who was jointly indicted with another, demanded a severance, which was granted. He was tried and convicted of the offense of burglary, and grand larceny from a railroad car, and from the judgment of conviction he appeals.

[1] There is no merit in the contention that the court erred in allowing the witness Johnson to testify as to the value ofl the tobacco alleged to have been stolen from the railroad car in question. The tobacco had been sufficiently identified as being the same tobacco found in the possession of the defendant at the time he was arrested, and it was not necessary or essential that it should have been shown that this witness was an expert. “Direct testimony as to the market value is in the nature of opinion evidence. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may testify as to value, if he has had opportunity for forming a correct opinion.” Code 1907, § 3960.

[2] Charges numbered 1, 2, and 3, requested in writing, were each properly refused. The propositions of law involved in these charges have been decided adversely to the contention of the defendant in the case of Vaughn v. State, ante, p. 35, 81 South. 417.

Charge 4 was the general affirmative charge for the defendant, and its refusal, under the evidence in this case, was clearly free from error.

' The motion for a new trial was properly overruled. Vaughn v. State, supra.

There is no .error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 394, 17 Ala. App. 197, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack