Case Title: Ex Parte Airhart

Citation: 477 So. 2d 979

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
477 So. 2d 979 (1985)
Ex parte Gerald Wayne AIRHART
(Re Gerald Wayne Airhart v. State).
84-207.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 19, 1985.
Roy J. Brown, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Anthony McLain and James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
BEATTY, Justice.
Certiorari was granted to determine whether or not the decision of the Court of *980 Criminal Appeals, 477 So. 2d 976, in this case applied the correct principle of law to the charge that this defendant
Specifically, the petitioner contends that there was a variance between this charge and the proof adduced at trial and as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals. In its opinion, that court found:
The court went on to find:
Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeals relied upon Farley v. State, 437 So. 2d 639 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), as authority for holding that no variance existed when the charge pertained to "currency" and the proof established unauthorized control over "checks." The contrary position had been recognized in Airhart v. State, 388 So. 2d 211 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), cert. quashed, 388 So. 2d 213 (Ala.1980). According to the Court of Criminal Appeals, at 437 So.2d 639:
"Airhart was decided before the effective date of the Alabama Criminal Code. Adoption of the new code cures this problem presented in Airhart. The commentary to § 13A-8-2 asserts that the purpose of enacting the section `is to create a unified theft offense which eradicates the common law distinctions between the crimes of larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses.' It further states that:
The unified theft offense created by § 13A-8-2, while reducing the risk of variance between pleading and proof, did not, however, eliminate the necessity for considering such variances as they might pertain to the nature of the property alleged to have been unlawfully controlled.[1] Nothing in that section transposes "currency" into a bank "check." And when in this case the charge involved "currency" and the evidence *981 established "checks," this was a fatal variance. See House v. State, 380 So. 2d 940, 942-43 (Ala.1979).
It follows that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals must be reversed and this cause remanded to that court with directions to order a new trial. It is so ordered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, J., concur in the result.
[1]  For example, if the indictment charged theft of an airplane and the proof showed theft of an automobile, a fatal variance would exist even though both articles of property are means of transportation. There is a similar material distinction between a bank check and a federal reserve note, even though each is a medium of exchange.