Sherard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sherard v. State

75 So. 721, 16 Ala. App. 129, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 190

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1917

Docket8 Div. 423.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 So. 721 (Sherard 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

Sherard v. State, 75 So. 721, 16 Ala. App. 129, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 190 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1-3] In the offense of “obtaining money or property by false pretenses,” a primal ingredient is the falsity of the alleged pretense whereby the defendant obtained the money. Without proof of such falsity, the corpus delicti is not shown. This cannot be shown by the confessions of a defendant until independent evidence has been introduced to prove it. Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 1, 37 South. 937. At the time this evidence was offered, there was absolutely no independent evidence of this fact, and the testimony of Trammell subsequently offered, that he was the owner of four mules, without identifying them' as the mules described in the mortgage or indictment, is not such a corroboration as would cure the error.

[4] It is not necessary to pass upon the objections to Cassels’ testimony, as it was excluded from the jury; and while the practice of letting in all of the testimony of a witness, and then éxcluding it, is liable in some cases to prejudice the jury against the defendant, we cannot say, in this instance, that it did. These questions must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial courts, who, however, should use it with great care, to the end that the defendant shall not suffer. Hicks v. State, 11 Ala. App. 290, 66 South. 873.

The charge that the money was obtained from Lon Hooper was properly laid in the indictment. Mack v. State, 63 Ala. 138.

In view of the fact that the other questions reserved will not likely come up on another trial, they are not here decided.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1-3] In the offense of “obtaining money or property by false pretenses,” a primal ingredient is the falsity of the alleged pretense whereby the defendant obtained the money. Without proof of such falsity, the corpus delicti is not shown. This cannot be shown by the confessions of a defendant until independent evidence has been introduced to prove it. Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 1, 37 South. 937. At the time this evidence was offered, there was absolutely no independent evidence of this fact, and the testimony of Trammell subsequently offered, that he was the owner of four mules, without identifying them' as the mules described in the mortgage or indictment, is not such a corroboration as would cure the error.

[4] It is not necessary to pass upon the objections to Cassels’ testimony, as it was excluded from the jury; and while the practice of letting in all of the testimony of a witness, and then éxcluding it, is liable in some cases to prejudice the jury against the defendant, we cannot say, in this instance, that it did. These questions must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial courts, who, however, should use it with great care, to the end that the defendant shall not suffer. Hicks v. State, 11 Ala. App. 290, 66 South. 873.

The charge that the money was obtained from Lon Hooper was properly laid in the indictment. Mack v. State, 63 Ala. 138.

In view of the fact that the other questions reserved will not likely come up on another trial, they are not here decided.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 721, 16 Ala. App. 129, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherard-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack