Myers v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Isbell v. State

    57 Ala. App. 444 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 25 times

    Ruffin v. State, 30 Ala. App. 344, 6 So.2d 455, cert. denied, 242 Ala. 345, 6 So.2d 456. The offense of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property of a value in excess of $25.00 is a felony, therefore, a conviction on such charge may not be had upon the testimony of accomplices only, where no other evidence was adduced which tended to connect the Defendant with the commission of the offense. Myers v. State, 26 Ala. App. 385, 160 So. 902. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Ellis D. Hanan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  2. Sledge v. State

    40 Ala. App. 671 (Ala. Crim. App. 1960)   Cited 18 times
    In Sledge and in Stephens, it was held that in a prosecution for buying stolen property, a prior purchase by defendant of stolen property is not admissible in evidence unless the thief is the same in both transactions.

    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. Ellis v. State, 38 Ala. App. 379, 86 So.2d 842.

  3. Register v. State

    42 So. 2d 519 (Ala. Crim. App. 1949)   Cited 6 times

    In the absence of corroborating evidence tending to connect defendant with commission of the offense charged, conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an admitted accomplice. Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L.R.A., N.S., 536; Myers v. State, 26 Ala. App. 385, 160 So. 902; Bailey v. State, 30 Ala. App. 374, 8 So.2d 202; Id., 242 Ala. 673, 8 So.2d 207. Refusal of charge C-2 was reversible error. Bain v. State, 74 Ala. 38; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42; Haygood v. State, Ala. Sup., 38 So.2d 593. The evidence tending to connect defendant with commission of the offense consisting of the testimony of a single witness, it was error to refuse charge C-20. Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala. App. 565, 104 So. 45; Slayton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 422, 173 So. 632; Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d 422. Refusal of charge C-22 was reversible error.