Elmore v. The State

Elmore v. The State. Indiotnient for Larceny. 1. Escape as evidence of guilt. — The. breaking out of jail and escape of one, under indictment for crime, may be given in evidence at Ins trial. Whether or not the motive for such escape, arose from the consciousness of guilt, or other considerations, is a question for the. determination of the. jury. FROM the Circuit Court of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. Jambs T. Jones. ' The defendant was indicted for stealing a watch, and was released on bond to await trial. Before the trial he was remanded to jail. At the trial, a witness for the State testified, tliat he did not know whether the defendant had been surrendered by his bondsmen in the matter of this indictment, or whether he was committed on another charge, but that after his commitment he broke out of jail and escaped, and was subsequently recaptured. The defendant moved tlie court to exclude from tlie jury that portion of witness’ testimony relating to tlie breaking of jail and escape by defendant, on tbe ground tliat it was irrelevant and illegal. The court overruled tlie motion, and tbis appeal is taken from that action of tbe court. Gesner Williams, for appellant. — [No brief.] Wm. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for tbe State, cited 3rd Brick. Dig. p. 290, §§ 649, 653; Sylvester v. State, 72 Ala. 201; Garden v. State, 84 Ala. 417; Kelso v. State, 47 Ala. 573. [MAJORITY — HARALSON, J.] HARALSON, J. The breaking out of jail and escape of one under indictment for crime, may arise from conscious guilt and tbe fear of trial tlierefor, and tbe dread of the punishment to follow; or it may be, that tbe defendant, conscious of innocence, may dread trial lest be be convicted; or, again, with such consciousness of innocence, being confined in prison and unable to give bail, be would seek freedom in flight from tbe discomforts of such imprisonment. Different individuals might act differently, under tbe same circumstances, owing to tbe difference in their minds, dispositions and characters. Whether or not, the motive for such an escape lias its origin in tbe consciousness of guilt and tbe dread of being brought to justice, or whether it can be explained and attributed to some other innocent motive, are questions for the determination of the jury, under all the evidence in the cause. Of itself, such evidence would not warrant conviction, but it is relevant, and the weight to which it is entitled, is for the jury under proper instructions from the court.—Bowles v. The State, 58 Ala. 335; Sylvester v. The State, 72 Ala. 201; Ross v. The State, 74 Ala. 532; Carden v. The State, 84 Ala. 417. There was no error in the admission of the evidence excepted to. Affirmed.