Court Opinion

ID: 9538062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:29:42.333265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:25.964996
License: Public Domain

CATES, Judge.
Appeal from conviction of receiving, etc., stolen goods, viz. a Chevrolet motor car owned by Hertz Corp. Code 1940, T. 14, § 338. Sentence five years in the penitentiary.
I
July 19, 1968, Hertz rented the car in question. In August Mrs. Amos Perkins testified she bought it from Patterson.
The assistant city manager for Hertz in Pensacola, Florida testified, in part:
“Q Do you know where, if anywhere, that particular car was during the early part of July, 1968?
“A The car was in Pensacola, Florida.
“Q Do you know if it was rented out or leased out by Hertz to any one?
*231“A It was rented July 19th at 10:00 A.M. to Mr. Dan Buie at the Pensacola Airport.
“Q And was it returned by Mr. Buie to Hertz to your knowledge?
“A No, it was not.
“Q Was it returned by anyone to Hertz ?
“A No.
“Q After that time did you ever see the car again ?
“A Well, not until it was recovered here.
“Q Did you see it here?
“A I saw it here, yes.
“Q Where here?
“A At the courthouse.
“Q In Andalusia ?
“A Right.
“Q And when was that?
“A This would have been the latter part of August.
“Q The latter part of August?
“A Right.
“Q And did you come to Andalusia?
"A Yes.
“Q Did you examine this particular car?
“A Yes.
“Q Did you check the serial number?
“A Yes.
“Q Was it the same one that I have asked you about already?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Was it the same one that was on your rental agreement with Mr. Buie?
“A Yes.
“Q Did you or anyone else who works for Hertz to your knowledge see the car from the time Mr. Buie had it until you came to Andalusia?
“A No one did.
“Q To your knowledge?
“A To my knowledge.”
This witness had also testified:
“Q Now Mr. Fuller, did Hertz register this car in Florida?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And buy a tag for it?
“A Yes, sir, we bought a tag for it.
“Q What is that in your hand?
“A Tag receipt from Florida Vehicle Registration, registered in 1968, Chevrolet 4-door Impalla, Model No. 16439, in Pensacola, Florida.
“Q And what serial number was given on that tag receipt?
“A 164398S129336.
“Q Now is it a practice or custom of Hertz Corporation to keep tag receipt like that as a record; it is their regular course of business to tag receipts as records?
“A Yes, sir, we keep the tag receipts in our permanent file for the record on each car.
“Q Is this tag receipt kept in the regular course of business of Hertz Corporation ?
“A Yes, sir.”
We excerpt from part of Mrs. Perkins’s testimony:
“Q Back in the early part of August, 1968, did you have occasion to buy an automobile from Darwin Patterson?
“A Yes, sir, I did.
“Q Would you describe that automobile to us?
*232“A It was a white 4-door Hardtop Impalla Chevrolet, ’68.
“Q ’68 Chevrolet Impalla?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Now when was this that this transpired, please mam ?
“A I believe it was August 6th.
“Q Where did you see Mr. Patterson, or where did this happen ?
“A Down at the Covington County-Bank parking lot.
“Q Now you say you bought a car from Mr. Patterson?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And it was a 1968 Chevrolet?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q How much did you pay him for it?
“A $1600.00.
“Q How did you pay it?
“A I gave him cash.
“Q Gave him cash. Did you get the car at that time?
“A Yes, sir, I did.
“Q Where was the car when you first saw it that day?
“A It was on the parking lot at the Covington County Bank.
“Q And did you drive it away from there at that time?
“A Yes, sir, I did.
“Q Had you seen this car before that time?
“A No, sir, I had not.
“Q Had you talked to Mr. Patterson about it before that time, about the transaction, about the car?
“A Well, my husband had handled the transaction up until then.
“Q How long did you keep this particular car?
“MR. POWELL: We object to her statement about what her husband did and move to exclude it.
“THE COURT: Yes, that answer is excluded.
“Q How long did you keep that particular car?
“A Four days.
“Q What happened to the car?
“A Well, Mr. Gantt and two deputies come out and told me it was stolen and brought it in.
*|* «fc «!» *1» H»
“Q About what time of day was it down at Covington County Bank that you bought the car from Darwin Patterson?
“A Around 9 o’clock in the morning.
“Q Now who else was there, if anyone?
“A Well, there was some guy with him. I don’t know who he was.
“Q Did you know him?
“A No, sir, I didn’t.
“Q Did Mr. Patterson give you a bill of sale for the car ?
“A He told me they were in the glove compartment.
“Q He did. And was it in the glove compartment ?
“A There was a tag receipt in there was all.
“Q Did you look in the glove compartment down there in the parking lot to see ?
“A No, sir, I did not.
“Q When did you look?
“A After I got home.
“Q And you found no bill of sale?
“A Right.
*233“Q But you did find what?
“A A tag receipt.
******
“Q Mrs. Perkins, did you ever receive from Darwin Patterson any hill of sale or other papers concerning the car?
“A No, sir, I did not.
“Q Plow much did you say you paid?
“A $1600.00.
“Q Have you recovered any of that $1600.00 from anyone?
“A $600.00.
“Q And who did you get that from?
“A Darwin.
“Q When was that?
“A That was on a Sunday after we had bought the car on Tuesday.
“Q Was it before or after the sheriffs office came and got the car?
“A It was afterwards.
“Q How was that paid?
“A In cash.”
II
The first contention is that Mrs. Perkins and her husband were accomplices. If so, then Code 1940, T. 15, § 307 would require corroboration of their testimony.
We consider that this contention is not pertinent here. We cannot, as a matter of law, say that the $1,600.00 paid by the Perkins to Patterson was so inordinately low as to show that they should have known Patterson was selling them a stolen car.
Even so, their .buying might be viewed as a separate and distinct act from Patterson’s having the car up to delivery to the Perkins. See Fuller v. State, 40 Ala.App. 297, 115 So.2d 110(8).
Ordinarily the defendant has the burden of showing complicity under § 307, supra. LaBryer v. State, 45 Ala.App. 33, 222 So.2d 361(9).
On a consideration of all the testimony of the Perkins, there was nothing substantial to prove a guilty scienter in their buying the car. Indeed, $600.00 was all they recouped on Hertz’s reclaiming it.
We find no reversible error in the lower court’s refusal of defendants requested Charges 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Charges 20 and 21 appear,., in our record only with the endorsement “signed.”
No other substantial question appearing under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389, we consider the judgment below is chie to be
Affirmed.