Matthews v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Matthews v. State

81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 4

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1919

Docket3 Div. 339.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 139 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 4 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEtN, J.

The defendant was convicted for the offense of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, knowing that it had been stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner, etc.

[1,2] On the trial of this case, the court in its rulings' upon the evidence declined to let the defendant explain the facts and circumstances under which the stolen property in question was received by him, and the statements made to him at the time of the delivery of the property in question by one Tom Jeans, who it appears is conceded to be the party who committed the larceny. This evidence was relevant for two reasons: (1) The defendant had the right to explain his possession of the stolen goods and all the facts and circumstances immediately incident to the goods coming into his possession, this being a part of the res gestte of the offense, and this testimony was therefore admissible for that reason; (2) the court had permitted the state, by Its wituesses Cosby and Rapport, to prove a part of the conversation which took place between the defendant and the said Tom Jeans, at the time of the delivery of the stolen sacks to the defendant by Jeans. Under this state of evidence, the whole conversation which occurred at that 'time and place should have been allowed, and the court's ruling in not allowing the defendant to testify to the whole conversation was error. When a part of the conversation or transaction has been proven by one party, the other may call for the whole of it. Gibson v. State, 91 Ala. 64, 9 South. 171; Davis v. State, 92 Ala. 20, 9 South. 616.

For the error pointed out, the judgment of the lower court must he reversed, and the cause remanded.

Other errors insisted upon on this appeal in all probability will not arise upon another trial of this case, rendering it unnecessary to deal with the two other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEtN, J.

The defendant was convicted for the offense of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, knowing that it had been stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner, etc.

[1,2] On the trial of this case, the court in its rulings' upon the evidence declined to let the defendant explain the facts and circumstances under which the stolen property in question was received by him, and the statements made to him at the time of the delivery of the property in question by one Tom Jeans, who it appears is conceded to be the party who committed the larceny. This evidence was relevant for two reasons: (1) The defendant had the right to explain his possession of the stolen goods and all the facts and circumstances immediately incident to the goods coming into his possession, this being a part of the res gestte of the offense, and this testimony was therefore admissible for that reason; (2) the court had permitted the state, by Its wituesses Cosby and Rapport, to prove a part of the conversation which took place between the defendant and the said Tom Jeans, at the time of the delivery of the stolen sacks to the defendant by Jeans. Under this state of evidence, the whole conversation which occurred at that 'time and place should have been allowed, and the court's ruling in not allowing the defendant to testify to the whole conversation was error. When a part of the conversation or transaction has been proven by one party, the other may call for the whole of it. Gibson v. State, 91 Ala. 64, 9 South. 171; Davis v. State, 92 Ala. 20, 9 South. 616.

For the error pointed out, the judgment of the lower court must he reversed, and the cause remanded.

Other errors insisted upon on this appeal in all probability will not arise upon another trial of this case, rendering it unnecessary to deal with the two other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 139, 16 Ala. App. 647, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack