Court Opinion

ID: 9686847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:09:13.883183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.509602
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(specially concurring) .
I concur. However, I consider that it is necessary to point out that in the case at bar the testimony of State’s witness Boyd was critical to allowing the case to go to the jury. I believe he took this out of the fungible goods perplexity of identification.
In Nelson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 121, 192 So. 594, it was held that to rely on possession of recently stolen goods the State must prove them to be the identical goods which were taken.
In Daw v. State, 42 Ala.App. 642, 176 So.2d 49, we find:
“In the instant case the State failed to show that the pecans which appellant sold to O’Farrell shortly after the burglary were identical to, or the ‘same kind’ as those stolen from Hall’s store. O’Farrell described the pecans he purchased from appellant as ‘large seedlings.’ Hall described the pecans stolen from his store as ‘extra large seedlings.’ No other testimony was adduced or attempted, so far as the record shows, which showed or tended to show that the pecans which appellant sold to O’Farrell were identical to the pecans stolen. :ji ifi ^ »