Hall v. State

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that no fatal or material variance existed between an indictment alleging theft of currency and trial evidence showing that the defendant obtained the funds by depositing a check. Applying Ex parte Roffler, the court concluded that the medium of exchange was immaterial and affirmed the conviction, overruling Ex parte Airhart and conflicting precedent to the extent necessary.

Holdings

1. Although the indictment and proof differed as to the medium of exchange, the variance was not material or fatal because the medium of exchange did not affect the monetary value, the notice provided to Hall, or his substantial rights.
2. Ex parte Airhart and its progeny are overruled to the extent they conflict with the holding that a currency-versus-check discrepancy is not a material variance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the difference between an indictment alleging theft of currency and trial evidence establishing theft by means of a check constituted a material and fatal variance.
2. Whether Ex parte Roffler controlled the analysis of the alleged variance and displaced contrary precedent.

Disposition

affirmed