From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shropshire v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 15, 1926
109 So. 888 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)

Opinion

7 Div. 236.

May 25, 1926. Rehearing Denied June 15, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Willis Shropshire was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Shropshire v. State, 109 So. 888.

These charges were refused to defendant:

"(1) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the evidence in this case is circumstantial, if you believe from the evidence there is probable probability that another person committed the offense, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

"(2) The court charges the jury that the state must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this defendant took the car with the intention to deprive the owner thereof, and if you are not satisfied from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant took the car with such purpose, you should not convict defendant."

Hugh Reed, of Center, and E. O. McCord Son, of Gadsden, for appellant.

Counsel argue for error in the rulings treated, but without citing authorities.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Counsel discuss the questions raised, but without citation of authorities.


An automobile was stolen from in front of the hotel in Center, Ala. In connecting the defendant with the taking, it was relevant to prove that defendant was seen in the town of Center on the day of the night the car was stolen, and, while the time was somewhat remote from the taking, the defendant's presence was a circumstance, though slight, to show opportunity.

Refused charge 1 is couched in language unusual in stating the doctrine of reasonable doubt. We think the charge tends to confuse, and therefore was properly refused. But, whether this is so or not, defendant had the benefit of the correct rule, clearly stated in the court's oral charge, and in given written charge 5.

Refused charge 2 was misleading in this particular case. Here the car may have been actually taken by another, and still the defendant be guilty as a confederate.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Shropshire v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 15, 1926
109 So. 888 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)
Case details for

Shropshire v. State

Case Details

Full title:SHROPSHIRE v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Jun 15, 1926

Citations

109 So. 888 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)
109 So. 888

Citing Cases

Shropshire v. State

PER CURIAM. Petition of Willis Shropshire for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the…