Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(95 South. 338)
    (6 Div. 68.)
    CUTCLIFF v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 30, 1923.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;4l3(2), 1170(4) — Exclusion of evidence defendant went to detectives to explain possession of property held not error, where no effort to prove flight, and evidence was later admitted.
    ■ In a prosecution for grand larceny, it was not error to exclude defendant’s testimony that, on receiving information he was suspected, he went to the detectives’ office with the idea of informing the detectives how he got the car and from whom, where no effort was made to prove flight as self-serving declarations are generally inadmissible, and where, thereafter, defendant was permitted to testify to the facts thereby sought to be proved, e&eept as to the undisclosed motive.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
    Walter Cutcliff was convicted of’ grand larceny, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Murphy & I-Ianna, of Birmingham, for appellant."'
    Where one is accused of having stolen property in bis possession, any remarks be might make in explaining bis possession are a part of tbe res gestee, and are admissible to show what interest be bad fin tbe property. 103'Ala. 40, 16 South. 12; 73 Ala. 23; 116 Ala. 445, 23 South. 40.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
    No brief reached the Beporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

Tbe evidence for tbe state tended to prove tbe state’s case and tbe evidence for defendant tended to establish defendant’s innocence. On the trial, while defendant was being examined as a witness in bis own behalf, defendant offered to prove that tbe- defendant went down to tbe detectives’ office in tbe city of Birmingham; after receiving information or intimation that he was suspected or accused of having stolen tbe car, and that he went to tbe detectives’ office with tbe idea of informing tbe detectives’ office bow be got this car and from whom. Tbe court sustained objection to tbis testimony, which was proper. No effort bad been made to prove flight, and self-serving declarations are inadmissible generally. However, after tbe objection bad been sustained, defendant was permitted to testify to tbe facts sought to have been proven, except to the undisclosed motive. The exception is without merit.

There is no error in the record ’ and the judgment is affirmed. ' .

Affirmed.