Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Ala. 104

Smith v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1877-12-15

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis. The defendant and George Franklin were indicted for the crime of larceny, by the grand jury of Montgomery county, at the October term, 1877, of the City Court of Montgomery. At the next term of the Court a nolle prosequi was entered in favor of George Franklin, and he became a witness for the State. He testified “ that he was with Tobe Smith, the defendant, on the night of the larceny; that Tobe Smith started to kill a hog in Ur.

Relies on Martin v. State · Montgomery v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2005

9 state decisions

5018771880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

STONE, J. —

¶1A prisoner may be convicted of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice, if “ corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offence.” It is not enough “ if it merely shows the commission of the offence, or the circumstances thereof.” Code of 1876, §4895. As we understand this statute, it requires that the corroborative testimony shall tend to connect the prisoner with the commission of the offence; must tend to show that he participated in the commission of the crime. — See Martin v. The State, 28 Ala. 71; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 380; Montgomery v. State, 40 Ala. 684.

¶2The evidence of the witness, Nicholson, did tend to connect the prisoner with the commission of the offence, and thus fairly presented to the jury the credibility of the accomplice. The statute does not specify any other fact, testified to by an accomplice, which requires corroboration before it will authorize conviction, and we are not authorized to add '■other clauses to it. The corroboration, extending to this essential, the question*of guilt or innocence should be allowed to be passed on by the jury. If, however, there is no corroboration of this essential fact, then a conviction should not be allowed.

¶3None of the charges asked should have been given, accord*106ing to the rules above declared. The fifth charge seeks to draw a distinction between J, C. Nicholson and John C. Nicholson, the alleged owner of the hog. The witness testified he was called and known by both names. The variance-was immaterial.

¶4Affirmed.

/59/ala/104 · .json · Public domain