Morrison v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Morrison v. State

140 So. 182, 25 Ala. App. 27, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 42

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1932

Docket6 Div. 861.

StatusPublished

This text of 140 So. 182 (Morrison 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

Morrison v. State, 140 So. 182, 25 Ala. App. 27, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 42 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

In a decision of this case we may pretermit a discussion of the innumerable points of decision engendered by the exceptions to the court’s rulings on the unusual scope of inquiry indulged and resorted to by the state on the trial of this case. The conviction of this appellant in the court below rested solely upon the testimony of state witness Hiram Squires, designated by- appellant’s counsel as, “State witness Extraordinary.” This witness Squires was an admitted accomplice in. the commission of the offense charged by the indictment against this appellant. At the close of the state’s case, the defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence upon the grounds: (1) “That the State has not made out a case against the defendant, nor introduced any evidence which tends to connect the defendant with a commission of the crime with which he is charged. (2) That the evidence introduced by the State in this cause does not corroborate the evidence of the accomplice, Hiram Squires, the state’s chief witness in this case.” The second ground of this motion was well taken, and the exception reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion must be and is sustained. The state failed to offer any proof to sustain the rule of evidence provided by section 5635 of the Code 1923. It is therein expressly provided: “A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense,” etc.

Eor the error designated, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

In a decision of this case we may pretermit a discussion of the innumerable points of decision engendered by the exceptions to the court’s rulings on the unusual scope of inquiry indulged and resorted to by the state on the trial of this case. The conviction of this appellant in the court below rested solely upon the testimony of state witness Hiram Squires, designated by- appellant’s counsel as, “State witness Extraordinary.” This witness Squires was an admitted accomplice in. the commission of the offense charged by the indictment against this appellant. At the close of the state’s case, the defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence upon the grounds: (1) “That the State has not made out a case against the defendant, nor introduced any evidence which tends to connect the defendant with a commission of the crime with which he is charged. (2) That the evidence introduced by the State in this cause does not corroborate the evidence of the accomplice, Hiram Squires, the state’s chief witness in this case.” The second ground of this motion was well taken, and the exception reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion must be and is sustained. The state failed to offer any proof to sustain the rule of evidence provided by section 5635 of the Code 1923. It is therein expressly provided: “A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense,” etc.

Eor the error designated, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 182, 25 Ala. App. 27, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-state-alactapp-1932.