Preuit v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Preuit v. State

110 So. 53, 21 Ala. App. 561, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 305

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1926

Docket8 Div. 445.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 So. 53 (Preuit 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

Preuit v. State, 110 So. 53, 21 Ala. App. 561, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 305 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Defendant was indicted jointly with Solomon Steele for the larceny of a bale of cotton. The court granted a motion for a severance. Defendant was tried alone and convicted.

The trial court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge requested for the defendant; there was evidence corroborating the testimony of Steele sufficient to carry the question to the jury. The weight of the evidence of Steele and of the defendant were, of course, for the jury.

Over defendant’s objection, the state was allowed to show that, when arrested, defendant denied having about his person more than $4 or $5, that he was searched and found to have something like $60, and thereupon he explained that he had this money from an uncle for the purpose of giving it to another relative. In this there was no error. It was later shown by the uncle that he did not give the defendant any money, and, further, by Steele, that a part of the proceeds of the sale of the cotton was given over to defendant. Defendant denied that he made the statement that his uncle had given him the *562 money and testified that he had won the $60 from Steele in a game of cards. This merely presented a conflicting issue for the jury to determine.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Defendant was indicted jointly with Solomon Steele for the larceny of a bale of cotton. The court granted a motion for a severance. Defendant was tried alone and convicted.

The trial court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge requested for the defendant; there was evidence corroborating the testimony of Steele sufficient to carry the question to the jury. The weight of the evidence of Steele and of the defendant were, of course, for the jury.

Over defendant’s objection, the state was allowed to show that, when arrested, defendant denied having about his person more than $4 or $5, that he was searched and found to have something like $60, and thereupon he explained that he had this money from an uncle for the purpose of giving it to another relative. In this there was no error. It was later shown by the uncle that he did not give the defendant any money, and, further, by Steele, that a part of the proceeds of the sale of the cotton was given over to defendant. Defendant denied that he made the statement that his uncle had given him the *562 money and testified that he had won the $60 from Steele in a game of cards. This merely presented a conflicting issue for the jury to determine.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 53, 21 Ala. App. 561, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preuit-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack