Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Ala. 12

Curtis v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1884-12-15

Tried before the lion. John Mooee. The indictment upon which the appellant was tried and convicted, charged him with the larceny of a mule belonging to Solomon Craig.

Relies on Ingram v. State · Yarborough v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1984

9 state decisions

2018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

CLOPTON, J.

¶1As a general rule, evidence that the defendant has committed offenses other than those charged in *14the indictment, though of a similar nature, is gprima facie inadmissible. The general rule has its limitations and exceptions. When it is material to show the intent with which the act charged was committed, to illustrate its criminality, or to identify the accused as the persou who committed the act laid in the indictment, such evidence is admissible. Ingram v. State, 39 Ala. 247; Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405. The evidence of the circumstances under which the defendant obtained the horse that.he delivered to the owner of the mule, for the larceny of which he was on trial, falls within the exception. It tended to show the falsity of the statement of the accused, that he had exchanged the mule for the horse, and to show the intent with which he took the mule — a felonious taking.

¶2Affirmed.

/78/ala/12 · .json · Public domain