Raybon v. State

Under Starr v. Starr, 293 Ala. 204, 301 So.2d 78, I consider that Louis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 120, 130 So. 904, and Thompson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 300, 134 So. 679, do not apply. The victim’s testimony that she was scared — as set out in the State’s brief1 —was sufficient to make the case one for the jury to have chosen between robbery and the lesser charge of grand larceny.

To say the least the prosecution sagged in extracting an articulateness from Mrs. Jackson. Under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389 it twinges my conscience to stamp this thieving scoundrel as a robber.

However, I do not consider this…