Lumpkin v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lumpkin v. State

68 Ala. 56

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 68 Ala. 56 (Lumpkin 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

Lumpkin v. State, 68 Ala. 56 (Ala. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

The record informs us the grand jury was “ elected, empanneled, sworn, and charged.” In the absence of other showing, we must presume the City Court had the legal oath administered, as it was his duty to do.—Davis v. The State, 54 Ala. 88; Mitchell v. The State, 58 Ala. 417.

To authorize a conviction of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice, such testimony must be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.- — Code of 1876, section 4895. The statute requires this, and only this. The charges asked were properly refused, because they assumed, as a rule of law, that [58]*58the defendant could not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless there was other testimony which, of itself, would authorize a conviction. This would be to deny to the testimony of the accomplice all weight before the jury. Such is not the law.—Smith v. The State, 59 Ala. 104; Lockett v. The State, 63 Ala. 5.

Affirmed.

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

STONE, J.

The record informs us the grand jury was “ elected, empanneled, sworn, and charged.” In the absence of other showing, we must presume the City Court had the legal oath administered, as it was his duty to do.—Davis v. The State, 54 Ala. 88; Mitchell v. The State, 58 Ala. 417.

To authorize a conviction of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice, such testimony must be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.- — Code of 1876, section 4895. The statute requires this, and only this. The charges asked were properly refused, because they assumed, as a rule of law, that [58]*58the defendant could not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless there was other testimony which, of itself, would authorize a conviction. This would be to deny to the testimony of the accomplice all weight before the jury. Such is not the law.—Smith v. The State, 59 Ala. 104; Lockett v. The State, 63 Ala. 5.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Ala. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumpkin-v-state-ala-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack