Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Ala. App. 574

74 So 397

Autrey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 1917

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1917-02-06

Heard before Hon. Ben D. Turner. Matthew Autrey was convicted of larceny, and appeals. The evidence tended to show that Matthew Autrey, Frank Smith, and others were engaged in a game of “skin,” and that Matthew Autrey became broke, and, drawing his pistol, pointed it at Smith’s head and forced him to lay down on the bench near by $4 in silver, which defendant took and carried away.

Relies on Danzey v. State · Rambo v. State · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-02-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1975

8 state decisions

501917192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PELHAM, P. J.

¶1 Refused charge No. 1 requested in behalf of the defendant (the general charge) was properly refused as the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions shows that the ques *576 tion of the defendant’s guilt of the greater offense charged against him, or of one of the lesser offenses included, was for the jury.

¶2 (1) Charge No. 11 was substantially covered by the written charges given at the request of the defendant and the oral charge of the’court.

¶3 (2) Charge E is misleading and in part abstract as applied to the facts, and was well refused.

¶4 (3) Charge R predicates a finding by the jury on a knowledge of the unworthiness of belief of witnesses outside of the evidence.

¶5 (4) That part of the oral charge of the court, to the effect that the defendant has no right to commit a breach of the peace in taking the money, although the person was not lawfully in possession of it, was free from error. — Danzey v. State, 126 Ala. 15, 28 South. 697.

¶6 (5) The court properly charged the jury that under the indictment for robbery a conviction could be had for larceny. Each of the lesser offenses of assault with intent to rob, assault, and battery, simple assault, or larceny are included in the greater offense. — Rambo v. State, 134 Ala. 71, 32 South. 650; Smith v. State, 11 Ala. App. 153, 65 South. 693.

¶7 We have examined the whole record, and find no error, or other question that requires discussion.

¶8 Affirmed.

/15/alaapp/574 · .json · Public domain