Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Ala. 58

Kidd v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1887

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1887-12-15

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The indictment in this case charged, in a single count, that Robert W. Kidd and Charles S. Gammell feloniously took and carried away, from the person of one Jim Jackson, sixteen silver dollars, currency of the United States. The defendants pleaded not guilty, but were convicted of petit larceny, and fined $100 each.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"But, as every robbery includes a larceny, the state could elect to prosecute for the minor offense."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 20 Ala. App. 604 - Williams v. State

Relies on Coleman v. State · Farrish v. State · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1972

9 state decisions

301887189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

SOMEBYILLE, J.

¶1— 1. It is objected that, under the facts of this case, the City Court of Montgomery county had no jurisdiction of the offense charged, which is that of larceny. The reason assigned is, that the money alleged to be stolen was taken from the possession of the owner by defendants, if taken at all, outside of the county of Montgomery, and was only brought into the latter county. If these facts be true, under the provisions of section 4639 of Code of 1876, which is but an affirmation of the common-law rule on the subject, jurisdiction is in either county — the . one in which the felonious taking first occurred, or any county into which the thief may have carried the stolen property. Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 59; Code, 1876, § 4639.

¶22. The evidence tends to show that the taking was perpetrated under such circumstances as to constitute a robbery. *60But, as every robbery includes a larceny, the State could elect to prosecute for the minor offense, and the venue of this offense was in either county.

¶33. The second charge given at the request of the State, was unsustained by any evidence set out in the bill of exceptions, which purports to state all the evidence introduced on the trial. The record contains no evidence tending ,to show that the defendants themselves supported by their own testimony the defense of an alibi, as stated in the charge; nor that their brother testified in the case, as this instruction assumes to be true. This renders the charge erroneous, and must operate to reverse the judgment.

¶43. The last clause of the second charge requested by the defendants declares, in effect, that any doubt arising out of the evidence requires the jury to acquit. It is only a reasonable doubt of a defendant’s guilt which entitles him to. an acquittal — not a possible, speculative, or imaginary doubt, as implied by this charge, which for this reason was misleading. — Farrish v. State, 63 Ala. 164; Coleman v. State, 59 Ala. 52; Humbree v. State, 81 Ala. 67.

¶5■ The other rulings of the court are free from error, the .remaining charges- requested by the defendants all being either misleading, or else objectionable as stating erroneous propositions of law.

¶6The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. The defendants, in the mean while, will be retained in custody until, discharged by due process of law.

/83/ala/58 · .json · Public domain