Court Opinion

ID: 9825577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:24:50.544221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:00.681687
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon a further consideration of this case, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in the following particulars:
1. Upon the cross-examination of Anna Gordon, the person who purchased the cow from defendant, she was asked if defendant did not tell her it was his wife’s cow and he wanted to sell her. To this question witness answered: “Yes sir, he said it was his wife’s cow.” This answer was excluded on motion of the state and defendant excepted. This declaration of defendant while in possession of the property, at the time and under the circumstances shown, were admissible as explanatory of his possession of the cow. Barnes v. State, 103 Ala. 44, 15 So. 901; Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 23, 45 Am. Rep. 72.
 2. We are now of the opinion that defendant’s refused charge 31 should have been given and that the court in his oral charge in dealing with this proposition was not authorized to limit the charge by qualifying it and making it only apply “under certain circumstances.” The charge is an exact copy of charge No. 1 held to be good in Black v. State, 83 Ala. 81, 3 So. 814, 3 Am. St. Rep. 691.
The application for rehearing must be granted, affirmance set aside, and the judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.