"In prosecutions for obtaining or exerting unauthorized control of allegedly stolen property or buying, receiving or concealing same, there must be proof of the value of the allegedly stolen items." Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56 (1907); Lang v. State, 23 Ala.App. 576, 129 So. 312 (1930); Padgett v. State, 44 Ala.App. 548, 216 So.2d 187 (1968); Nelson v. State, 56 Ala.App. 209, 320 So.2d 714 (1975). As noted by this court in DeBruce v. State, 461 So.2d 889 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), speaking through Presiding Judge Bowen, we find the following:
In prosecutions for obtaining or exerting unauthorized control of allegedly stolen property or buying, receiving or concealing same, there must be proof of the value of the allegedly stolen items. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56 (1907); Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312 (1930); Padgett v. State, 44 Ala. App. 548, 216 So.2d 187 (1968); Nelson v. State, 56 Ala. App. 209, 320 So.2d 714 (1975). As noted by this court in DeBruce v. State, 461 So.2d 889 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), speaking through Presiding Judge Bowen, we find the following:
Hubert L. Taylor, Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for appellant. On the charge of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, the burden is on the State to prove the value of the alleged property stolen, and failure to prove said value is reversible error, Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 596, 129 So. 312, (1930); Middleton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 564, 175 So. 613 (1937); King v. State, 46 Ala. App. 493, 243 So.2d 766 (1971); Padgett v. State, 44 Ala. App. 548, 216 So.2d 187 (1968). William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Kermit M. Downs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Proof of value is necessary to a conviction for buying, receiving, concealing or aiding in concealing stolen property. Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312; Padgett v. State, 44 Ala. App. 548, 216 So.2d 187. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sarah M. Greenhaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Proof of value of the property allegedly bought, received, or concealed, is a required element of a prima facie case to sustain a conviction of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. Code of Alabama, Title 14, Section 338; Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56 (1907); Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312 (1930); Koonce v. State, 27 Ala. App. 46, 165 So. 601 (1936); Middleton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 564, 176 So. 613 (1937); Tanner v. State, 37 Ala. App. 256, 66 So.2d 827 (1953); Curtis v. State, 44 Ala. App. 335, 208 So.2d 245 (1967); Padgett v. State, 44 Ala. App. 548, 216 So.2d 187 (1968). William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Milton C. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Proof of value was necessary to a conviction. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56; Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312. The motion to exclude the state's evidence should have been granted. Evidence as to the other articles taken from defendant's automobile, not shown to have been stolen, was prejudicial and should not have been introduced, Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803, but its admission was not error in the absence of an objection.
A judgment of conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property would be reversed in absence of proof of value of the property. Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312. Appellant's claim of error No. 10 is that it was error to not allow him to testify as to the value of the coins.
In absence of proof of venue defendant cannot be convicted where he seasonably brings omission to the court's attention. Mooney v. State, 23 Ala. App. 446, 126 So. 611; Melton v. State, 21 Ala. App. 419, 109 So. 114. Failure to show value of property was fatal to judgment of conviction. Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312; Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56. Conviction for felony cannot be had or uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. Morris v. State, 17 Ala. App. 126, 82 So. 573, 574; Myers v. State, 26 Ala. App. 385, 160 So. 902. Remarks by solicitor in argument to effect that defendant might obtain probation was highly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.
Under an indictment charging receipt of stolen property, proof of value is necessary to determine the punishment. Code 1940, Tit. 14, § 338; Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56; Middleton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 564, 176 So. 163; Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312. Objections to argument of counsel cannot be considered in the absence of a motion to exclude it from the jury. 7 Ala.Dig., Criminal Law, 1044, p. 134.
Smith v. State, 25 Ala. App. 339, 146 So. 426. The evidence must show or tend to prove the material allegations of the indictment. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97, 44 So. 56; Middleton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 564, 176 So. 163; Lang v. State, 23 Ala. App. 576, 129 So. 312; Pfister v. State, 84 Ala. 432, 4 So. 395; Oliver v. State, 234 Ala. 460, 175 So. 305; Chisolm v. State, 45 Ala. 66; Baldwin v. State, 204 Ala. 91, 85 So. 304; Ward v. State, 19 Ala. App. 398, 98 So. 208; Code 1945, Tit. 15, § 254. Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.