Crofton v. State

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Citation: Crofton v. State, 27 Ala.App. 589, 176 So. 832 (Ala. App. 1937)
• Decision Date: 02 November 1937
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 584
• Parties: CROFTON v. STATE.

176 So. 832

27 Ala.App. 589

CROFTON v. STATE.

8 Div. 584

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 2, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.

Woodrow Crofton and another were convicted of arson, and the named defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Henry D. Jones, of Florence, for appellant.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The defendants, together with two others, were indicted jointly and charged with willfully setting fire to or burning, or caused to be burned, or aided or procured the burning of a barn, the property of John Murphy, not within the curtilage of a dwelling.

The fire which caused the destruction of the barn occurred about 11 o'clock on a certain Thursday night. No witness testified to seeing either of the defendants actually setting fire to the barn, and therefore the proof of the corpus delicti rests in inferences to be drawn from the surrounding circumstances, as testified to by John Murphy and his wife. As to these, the two Murphys testified that the barn was across the road from the house in which they lived; that they heard the dog barking, waked up, went out of the house to the barn, which was a short distance and across the road; that there was in the barn some corn and hay, a horse and a cow there was the smell of kerosene oil coming from the burning hay; that they found a quart of coal oil and an empty can around the barn; that at the time the barn was burning some parties fired a number of shots, from shotguns, into the dwelling where the Murphys lived; that when the Murphys went out of the house toward the barn they saw four men whom they identified as these defendants and the others indicted with them, and that they ran off. From these facts, the jury was authorized to draw the inferences that the fire was not accidental, but had been intentionally set by some person. The corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence and when there are proven acts from which inferences can be legally drawn it is a question for the jury to say whether or not the corpus delicti has been proven. 4 American Jurisprudence, page 109, § 55.

A more serious question arises as to whether or not there is any evidence connecting either of these defendants with the corpus delicti. True, the two Murphys testified that while the barn was burning they saw and recognized these two defendants as being near the scene. It also...