Wallis v. State

Wallis v. State.

Wallis v. State, 90 So. 35 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921)

Court: Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 5, 1921
Docket: No. 8 Div. 733.
Judges: Samford
Citations: 90 So. 3518 Ala. App. 1081921 Ala. App. LEXIS 90
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Cited by 7

Headnotes

1. Criminal law @=^510 — No conviction for felony on accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony. Under the statute, a defendant charged with felony may not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 2. Criminal law <®=511(1) — Evidence held insufficient to corroborate accomplice. On a trial for burglary, evidence held insufficient to corroborate the testimony of an alleged accomplice,- who was the party who actually went into the building and took the money stolen.

Summary

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County ; W. W. I-Iarralson, Judge. Albert Wallis was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. The court erred in the admission of evidence relative to the tracks. 105 Ala. 127, 16 South. 801; 122 Miss. 647, 84 South. 700; 157 Ala. 63, 47 South. 176; 12 Ala. App. 160, 68 South. 521. The testimony of the accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated, and should have been excluded. Section 7897, Code 1907; 15 Ala. App. 72, 72 South. 557; 16 O. J. 929; 17 Ala. App. 126; 82 South. 574 ; 84 South. 785; 7 Ala. App. 140, 61 South. 479 ; 90 Ala. 630, 8 South. 383, 24 Am. St. Rep. 850; 170 Ala. 80, 54 South. 516. Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Samford

SAMFORD, J.

[1]

Under the statute, a defendant charged with felony may not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

[2]

It is conceded in this case that Lump-kin is the party who actually went into the storehouse and got the money from the money drawer, and it is -only on Lumpkin’s testimony that the defendant Wallace is connected with the crime at all, except the testimony of several witnesses to the effect that about 200 yards from the store a barefooted track was found in the .road leading in the direction of defendant’s home. There was no peculiarity about the track, nor was *109 It shown to have been made by the defendant, except by the testimony of Lumpkin.

The evidence for the state, other than Lumpkin, tended to show that only one person went to the store; that that person was in his sock feet, and would wear about a number 11 shoe; that ibis large sock-footed track began about 3 feet from the veranda and went on down the road and in the direction of where Lumpkin lived; that about 200 yards from the store a smaller barefooted track (about a No. 7) began and went in the same general direction. Lumpkin swore that the large track was his and the smaller track defendant’s, and that both were in their sock feet. In addition to these, and other discrepancies, the witness was not only an accomplice, but was a self-confessed thief, and generally of bad character, and on another occasion this defendant had found out and been the cause of his prosecution for another burglary. It also appears he had been promised and been granted immunity by the solicitor and court in this case. The testimony of Lumpkin was not sufficiently corroborated. It should have been excluded on motion. Even if there had been slight corroboration, the motion for a new trial should have been gránted.

Eor the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

<gz=?For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Senn v. State344 So. 2d 192 (Ala. 1977)
Evans v. State172 So. 2d 796 (Ala. Ct. App. 1965)
Segars v. State97 So. 747 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923)
Cheatwood v. State113 So. 482 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927)
Kemp v. State139 So. 437 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932)
Yarber v. State375 So. 2d 1212 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)

Most recent

Yarber v. State375 So. 2d 1212 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)
Senn v. State344 So. 2d 192 (Ala. 1977)
Anderson v. State210 So. 2d 436 (Ala. Ct. App. 1968)
Evans v. State172 So. 2d 796 (Ala. Ct. App. 1965)
Kemp v. State139 So. 437 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932)
Cheatwood v. State113 So. 482 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list