Court Opinion

ID: 9858194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:18:13.674473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:28.457344
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(dissenting):
I most respectfully dissent. I would affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals, being of the opinion its decision is correct.
The clear effect of the oral charge in this case is to place upon defendant the burden of explaining his possession of recently stolen goods — thus of proving his innocence. The burden of proof is on the State to prove defendant’s guilt.
As pointed out in the exhaustive opinion of Mr. Justice McCall, the older cases of our court, as well as those of the Court of Appeals, have indicated defendant had such burden. Clearly, however, modern authority is to the contrary.
Almost identical charges were condemned by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Haynes v. State, 45 Ala.App. 31, 222 So.2d 183 (1969), and in Reed v. State, 47 Ala.App. 617, 259 So.2d 304 (1972). I think these decisions are correct.
A charge to effect that the unexplained provision of recently stolen property is a circumstance from which the jury may infer that the defendant is guilty of *359stealing it, was recently upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Chadwick v. State, 47 Ala.App. 529, 258 So.2d 62 (1972). Judge Cates in concurring with Judge Tyson’s opinion for the Court of Criminal Appeals suggests what is, in my judgment, a proper charge. It does not directly'place a burden on defendant, which I consider to be the vice in the charge in the instant case.
HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, J., concur.