Court Opinion

ID: 9694088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:22:12.793508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:55.985878
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring):
Under Starr v. Starr, 293 Ala. 204, 301 So.2d 78, I consider that Louis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 120, 130 So. 904, and Thompson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 300, 134 So. 679, do not apply. The victim’s testimony that she was scared — as set out in the State’s brief1 —was sufficient to make the case one for the jury to have chosen between robbery and the lesser charge of grand larceny.
To say the least the prosecution sagged in extracting an articulateness from Mrs. Jackson. Under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389 it twinges my conscience to stamp this thieving scoundrel as a robber.
However, I do not consider this a case of (a mere scintilla.

. “ ‘Q. When he put his hand behind you, what did he do?
A. I got scareder and scareder. It looked like my nerves went.
Q. And what did he tell you to do when he put his hand behind you?
A. Go get it.
Q. Go get what?
A. That money.
Q. All right.
A. I said, “Don’t hurt me.” I had a gun in there, but I knowed if I went and picked up my pistol, he would have taken it from me and killed me. . . . ’ ”