Court Opinion

ID: 9674372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:27:49.290773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.256023
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
The only ruling had. of the trial judge as to the State’s making a prima facie case was on a motion to exclude the State’s evidence. The motion was denied.
There were no exceptions taken to the oral charge. The defense tendered no written charges. Hence, the oral charge became the law of the case.
*642As I understand the majority opinion, it holds that the State failed to sustain the burden of negativing a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant.
A “claim of right” believed in good faith negatives the felonious intent when the accused has undisputedly taken property. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288; 50 Am.Jur.2d Larceny, § 41. The State has the burden to dissipate from the minds of the jurors any honest claim of right on the part of the prisoner. See Black v. State, 83 Ala. 81, 3 So. 814 — refusal of charge (1):
“The charge requested by defendant, that if the taking was open and notorious, and there was no subsequent attempt to conceal the property, and no denial, but an avowal, of the taking, a strong presumption arises that there was no felonious intent, which must be repelled by clear and convincing evidence, before a conviction is authorized, is substantially in the language of the rule as declared in McMullen v. State, 53 Ala. 531, and should have been given. * * * »
(Italics added).
In Black, supra, and in Morningstar v. State, 55 Ala, 148, refusal of instructions. But in McMullen v. State, 53 Ala. 531, the tendered instruction invaded the province of the jury. See also Morrisette v. State, 77 Ala. 71.
In Brand v. State, 26 Ala.App. 286, 158 So. 769 overruling a motion for new trial was held erroneous. This case comes nearest to supporting the majority opinion herein. See also Scott v. State, 29 Ala.App. 110, 192 So. 288.
Citing Talbert v. State, 121 Ala. 33, 25 So. 690, Beatty asserts, Alabama Property Offenses, 12 Ala.L.Rev. 253 at 279, that an open taking no longer rebuts the animus furandi as a matter of law.
Talbert, supra, reaffirmed McMullen, supra, Tyson, J., writing:
“The foregoing considerations show that the taking of goods in the presence of the owner or other persons, otherwise than by robbery, will not raise the presumption, as a matter of law, that a felonious intent did not exist in the mind of the defendant, but that its existence or nonexistence should be submitted to the jury for their determination when the other essentials of the charge of larceny were shown by the evidence, such as the taking and carrying away against the will of the owner, etc. Nor do we mean to be understood as saying that cases cannot arise where the fact of intent is involved. Its existence or nonexistence cannot be affirmed as a matter of law, but, in such cases, the evidence must be clear, and leave no room for any reasonable inference against its existence or nonexistence.”
The so-called invoice serves as bill of sale but states that the “Title of Ownership” does not pass to the buyer until the final cash payment is made. No due date of payment was specified. Nothing says time is of the essence. No right of repossession is given. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556.
To me this was a classic case for a jury to decide. That the defense failed to ask for other appropriate instructions is no. ground for us to act as a court of cassation.
I respectfully dissent.