Wiley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wiley v. State

75 So. 641, 16 Ala. App. 93, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 159

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 1917

Docket6 Div. 354.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 So. 641 (Wiley 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

Wiley v. State, 75 So. 641, 16 Ala. App. 93, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 159 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was tried in the county court of Winston county under a charge of selling mortgaged property, and from a judgment of conviction he appeals.

[1] In order to sustain a conviction for this offense, the state must prove by evi *94 denee beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that there was a sale of personal property; second, that the defendant had given a written mortgage lien or deed of trust on the property so sold; third, that at the time of the sale such mortgage lien or deed of trust was unsatisfied, in whole or in part; fourth, that such sale was made without first having obtained the consent of the lawful holder of the mortgage, lien, or'deed of'trust. These things must be established by legal testimony. The legal testimony in this case is as follows: One Hogan traded for a mule from the defendant on the 2d day of October, 1016, in Winston County; that at the time Hogan did not know of any lien on the property; that afterwards defendant came and wanted the mule back. There was no evidence for the state that there was a written mortgage, lien, or deed of trust on the property.

[2] The admissions of the defendant, testified to by the witness Hogan, were not admissible. . The corpus delicti must be proven before confessions of a defendant are competent, even after a proper predicate has been laid. . Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 1, 37 South. 937.

[3] The statement made by Wood, as testified to by the witness Hogan, that Wood said to Hogan that he (Wood) had a mortgage on the mule, was incompetent. Secondary evidence of a written instrument is not admissible until its absence has been properly accounted for. The highest evidence is the paper itself or the record. Du Bose v. State, 115 Ala. 70, 22 South. 613.

[4,5] When Wood, who was claimed to have had a mortgage on the mule, was examined, he testified that he did not have a mortgage, lien, or deed of trust on the mule defendant traded to Hogan. Whatever other claim he may have had was not relevant to the issue in this case. On the evidence, as shown by the record, the defendant should not have been convicted.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was tried in the county court of Winston county under a charge of selling mortgaged property, and from a judgment of conviction he appeals.

[1] In order to sustain a conviction for this offense, the state must prove by evi *94 denee beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that there was a sale of personal property; second, that the defendant had given a written mortgage lien or deed of trust on the property so sold; third, that at the time of the sale such mortgage lien or deed of trust was unsatisfied, in whole or in part; fourth, that such sale was made without first having obtained the consent of the lawful holder of the mortgage, lien, or'deed of'trust. These things must be established by legal testimony. The legal testimony in this case is as follows: One Hogan traded for a mule from the defendant on the 2d day of October, 1016, in Winston County; that at the time Hogan did not know of any lien on the property; that afterwards defendant came and wanted the mule back. There was no evidence for the state that there was a written mortgage, lien, or deed of trust on the property.

[2] The admissions of the defendant, testified to by the witness Hogan, were not admissible. . The corpus delicti must be proven before confessions of a defendant are competent, even after a proper predicate has been laid. . Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 1, 37 South. 937.

[3] The statement made by Wood, as testified to by the witness Hogan, that Wood said to Hogan that he (Wood) had a mortgage on the mule, was incompetent. Secondary evidence of a written instrument is not admissible until its absence has been properly accounted for. The highest evidence is the paper itself or the record. Du Bose v. State, 115 Ala. 70, 22 South. 613.

[4,5] When Wood, who was claimed to have had a mortgage on the mule, was examined, he testified that he did not have a mortgage, lien, or deed of trust on the mule defendant traded to Hogan. Whatever other claim he may have had was not relevant to the issue in this case. On the evidence, as shown by the record, the defendant should not have been convicted.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 641, 16 Ala. App. 93, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiley-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack