Comer v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Mayo v. State

    60 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Crim. App. 1952)

    De Silvey v. State, 245 Ala. 163, 16 So.2d 183. Appellant had the burden of explaining his recent possession of the stolen goods, and failing to do so the presumption of his guilt arose and supported the verdict. Comer v. State, 28 Ala. App. 470, 188 So. 691; Id., 237 Ala. 653, 188 So. 692. Possession of all or part of stolen goods, if not satisfactorily explained is sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt. Holcomb v. State, 26 Ala. App. 593, 164 So. 300. The facts presented a jury question.

  2. Comer v. State

    188 So. 693 (Ala. 1939)   Cited 1 times

    THOMAS, Justice. Petition of Marion Comer for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Comer v. State, 188 So. 691. Writ denied.

  3. Pugh v. State

    376 So. 2d 1135 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 7 times

    The settled rule in this State is that the possession of recently stolen goods in a burglary creates a "circumstance or inference" for the jury's consideration. Buckles v. State, 291 Ala. 359, 280 So.2d 823. It is the province of the jury to determine whether his explanation of the possession is reasonable and true. Comer v. State, 28 Ala. App. 470, 188 So. 691; Berry v. State, 22 Ala. App. 168, 113 So. 626. Further, it is also a question for the jury whether the accused's presence at the burglarized building was a coincidence or was the result of a concerted action between the parties.

  4. Westfaul v. State

    323 So. 2d 404 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Variance between the correct name of an accused or victim as stated in an indictment and as stated in evidence at trial is not a "fatal variance" unless more than slight and does not entitle the accused to requested affirmative charge. Jones v. State, 241 Ala. 337, 2 So.2d 422; Comer v. State, 28 Ala. App. 470, 188 So. 691; Page v. State, 61 Ala. 16; Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220; Espey v. State, 31 Ala. App. 351, 17 So.2d 430; Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53, 60; McCoy v. State, 232 Ala. 104, 166 So. 769. TYSON, Judge.

  5. Jackson v. State

    50 So. 2d 455 (Ala. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 1 times

    Clearly, in this state of the record, we are not authorized to hold that the trial judge was in error in denying the motion for a new trial. Elmore v. State, 15 Ala. App. 65, 72 So. 568; Hickey v. State, 12 Ala. App. 143, 67 So. 732; Swoope v. State, 19 Ala. App. 254, 96 So. 728; Holcomb v. State, 26 Ala. App. 593, 164 So. 300; Comer v. State, 28 Ala. App. 470, 188 So. 691. The judgment below is ordered affirmed.

  6. Espey v. State

    31 Ala. App. 351 (Ala. Crim. App. 1944)   Cited 12 times

    Kirk v. State, 13 Ala. App. 316, 69 So. 350; Curry v. State, 23 Ala. App. 182, 122 So. 298; Sanders v. State, 2 Ala. App. 13, 56 So. 69; Couch v. State, 6 Ala. App. 43, 60 So. 539. But the name alleged in the indictment and that brought out in the proof are idem sonans. Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220; Comer v. State, 28 Ala. App. 470, 188 So. 691. Charges requested for John Wesley Curtis were abstract and misleading. The trial court has a wide discretion in determining the propriety of argument by counsel.