Case ID: ala_68/html/0056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STONE, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lumpkin v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Burglary and Grand Larceny.
    
    1. Grand jury ; sufficiency of recital in the record as to oath administered to. — -When the record shows that the grand jury was sworn, this court will presume that the legal oath was administered to them, unless the record shows the contrary.
    2. Accomplice; uihat corroboration necessary to authorize conviction of felony on evidence of. — The testimony of an accomplice must, to authorize a conviction for felony, be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; but it is not necessary that there should be other evidence which would, of itself, warrant a conviction.
    Appeal from Selma City Court.
    Tried before Hon. Jsro. Habalson.
    James Hattrick and Isaiah Lumpkin, the appellant,
    were indicted for burglary and grand larceny at tbe January Term, 1880, of the City Court of Selma. At the same term a nolle prosequi was entered as to tbe defendant Hattrick. Isaiah Lumpkin moved to quasb tbe indictment, on tbe around that the grand jury, by whom it was found, was not sworn according to law. The record recites that the “grand jury was then elected, empanneled, sworn, and charged.” The court overruled the motion to quash, and defendant excepted. On the trial Hattrick was examined as a witness, and stated that he found defendant in the store, which he was charged with breaking and entering, and that he, witness, received, and in company with the defendant, hid certain articles which they then took from the store ; and which were mentioned in the indictment. The owner of the store testified as to the breaking, the entry, the loss of the goods named in the indictment, and stated that he had found some articles in the defendant’s house, which were shown to him by the defendant, and which were similar to the stolen goods. There was much other evidence, but it need not be stated. The defendant asked the court to charge the jury : “ That, before they can convict the defendant in this case, they must have other evidence of the burglary than that of the accomplice, Hattrick, and such other evidence must be aliunde, sufficient to convict the defendant.” 2. “ That before they can convict the defendant in this case they must have such evidence of all the material ingredients of the offense as will convince them beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, of defendant’s guilt, other than that of the accomplice, Hattrick.” These charges the court refused to give, and defendant excepted. The defendant was convicted.
    The record does not show any assignment of "error, or the name of counsel for appellant.
    H. C. Tompkins, Attorney-General, for the State,
    cited as to the oath administered the grand jury, Latuson v. The _State, 20 Ala. 65 ; Davis v. The State, 54 Ala. 88 ; Mitchell v. The State, 58 Ala. 417. On the evidence of an accomplice — Moses v. The State, 58 Ala. 117 ; Smith v. The State, 59 Ala. 104.
   STONE, J.

The record informs us the grand jury was elected, empanneled, sworn, and charged.” In the absence of other showing, we must presume the City Court had the legal oath administered, as it was his duty to do.—Davis v. The State, 54 Ala. 88; Mitchell v. The State, 58 Ala. 417.

To authorize a conviction of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice, such testimony must be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.- — Code of 1876, section 4895. The statute requires this, and only this. The charges asked were properly refused, because they assumed, as a rule of law, that the defendant could not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless there was other testimony which, of itself, would authorize a conviction. This would be to deny to the testimony of the accomplice all weight before the jury. Such is not the law.—Smith v. The State, 59 Ala. 104; Lockett v. The State, 63 Ala. 5.

Affirmed.