Summary
In Stephens, the defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of receiving stolen guns from two thieves, who are named in the opinion.
Summary of this case from Ex Parte CaseyOpinion
1 Div. 406.
May 21, 1974. Rehearing Denied June 25, 1974.
Appeal from the Mobile County Circuit Court, William D. Bolling, J.
Matranga, Hess, Sullivan Stout, Mobile, Joseph O. Kulakowski, Birmingham, for appellant.
The trial court erred to the prejudice of the defendant, in admitting testimony and physical evidence of an alleged subsequent offense, for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge on an alleged prior occasion for which the defendant was being tried. Witters v. United States, 70 D.C.App. 316, 106 F.2d 838, 125 A.L.R. 1031; Dampier v. State, 191 Ind. 334, 132 N.E. 590; Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Evidence relative to similar offense perpetrated by the defendant before and after the crime charged may be admissible to show intent, scheme, design or motive. Brown v. State, 37 Ala. App. 516, 74 So.2d 273; Christison v. State, 41 Ala. App. 192, 142 So.2d 666; Lee v. State, 31 Ala. App. 91, 13 So.2d 583; Wilkins v. State, 29 Ala. App. 349, 197 So. 75.
Buying, receiving, etc., stolen personal property: sentence, three years imprisonment. Code 1940, T. 14, § 338.
I
Under the tendencies of the State's evidence Stephens knowingly bought from C. L. Cummins and Kim Bolt several guns. These weapons were the fruits of burglarizing the home of Bruce H. Britt. One Robert Crittenden acted as a go-between in the sale; Crittenden bought one gun with money furnished him by Stephens, presumably a finder's fee. Stephens dealt directly with Cummins and Bolt.
II
Over objection, evidence was admitted to show that Stephens bought some other stolen guns from Mike Lowery and Cowboy Williams. Again Crittenden served as broker while Lowery and Williams waited in the kitchen for their money. This sale was the subject of another indictment.
These guns came — feloniously — from the home of one Gatlin and were referred to at nisi prius as the "Gatlin guns."
We believe the objection was valid under Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438, 66 So.2d 557, 42 A.L.R.2d 847. We consider that here proof of another crime shows no distinguishing light on a trait or modus operandi, or identity.
To show scienter of receiving stolen goods, proof of other like offenses must be confined to proof of purchases from the same thief from whom the alleged receiver got the goods laid in the indictment sub judice.
We consider our cases follow the view of the minority in People v. Marino, 271 N.Y. 317, 3 N.E.2d 439, 105 A.L.R. 1283. Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88, 49 So. 803; Morris v. State, 17 Ala. App. 126, 82 So. 574; Leverett v. State, 18 Ala. App. 578, 93 So. 347; Glover v. State, 21 Ala. App. 423, 109 So. 125; Little v. State, 24 Ala. App. 484, 136 So. 864; Davis v. State, 39 Ala. App. 515, 104 So.2d 762; Sledge v. State, 40 Ala. App. 671, 122 So.2d 165; Harris v. State, 41 Ala. App. 261, 130 So.2d 227; and Brown v. State, 48 Ala. App. 84, 261 So.2d 914. See also Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Coplon v. State, 15 Ala. App. 331, 73 So. 225; McElroy, Evidence in Alabama (2d Ed.), § 70.23; Coleman v. People, 55 N.Y. 81; Copperman v. People, 56 N.Y. 591; and Weiss v. State, Fla., 124 So.2d 528.
Without question, the admission of this testimony was prejudicial, adding increments of unrelated guilt to the weighing pans of the scales of justice.
For this error the judgment below is due to be reversed and the cause remanded for venire de novo.
Reversed and remanded.
All the Judges concur.