Driver v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 345 |
| Citation | 89 So. 897,18 Ala.App. 261 |
| Parties | DRIVER et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 19, 1921
Reversed on Mandate July 19, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; B.K. McMorris, Judge.
Luther Driver and Enoch Mims were convicted of grand larceny, and they appealed. Affirmed on original opinion and on application for rehearing, but reversed and remanded under mandate of the Supreme Court (89 So. 504).
Grady Reynolds, of Clanton, and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellants.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants were convicted of grand larceny, the theft of seed cotton. In the trial of the case the defendants offered no testimony, and it is earnestly insisted here, as also appears to have been done in the trial court, that there was a variance between the allegation of the ownership of the property as alleged in the indictment, and as disclosed by the proof. The ownership was laid in E.H. Mims, Becky Driver and Will Connell. The testimony of the relationship of these parties as regards these farming operations for the year 1919 is very meagre, as disclosed by the record. This much however, we think is shown: That Becky Driver and Will Connell raised the cotton alleged to have been stolen on the plantation of Mims; that they were working on halves; that Mims furnished the "team and everything," and Becky Driver and Will Connell furnished the labor. Appellant insists that under this state of facts there arose the relation of employer and employee, hirer and hireling, or master and servant under section 4743 of the Code of 1907 and that, Becky Driver and Will Connell having a mere lien on the property for the amount of the value of one-half, the measure of their wages for the year had no such ownership of the property as could be joined with Mims in a joint allegation of ownership in an indictment charging larceny of the property. It must be, as it is conceded, that, by virtue of the possession of Becky Driver and Connell, allegation of ownership could have rightly been laid in them. We do not decide, under the facts disclosed by the record, that any such relationship existed between these parties as would bring them under the operation of section 4743 (see Tate v. Cody-Henderson Co., 11 Ala.App. 350, 66 So. 837); but, assuming such to be the case, we are of the opinion that the ownership of the property can be laid jointly in all the parties named. Each of the parties had some interest in the property. Mims had the legal title, Becky Driver and Connell had a lien and the right to hold possession until this lien was satisfied. Beck v. Crow, 204 Ala. 295, 85 So. 489. All of the parties having an interest in the property ownership can be alleged in one or all of them. Section 7147, Code of Alabama.
But, aside from this phase of the evidence, there is the testimony undisputed of Will Connell that he, Becky Driver, and Mims were the joint owners of the property. There is nothing to indicate that this statement as to ownership was predicated on the facts above--no attempt to question this ownership or how it came about--and, the defendants offering no testimony, this was sufficient within itself in warranting the jury to the conclusion that the ownership of the property was proven as alleged.
Portions of the court's oral charge relative to the possession of stolen property, when taken separately, may be susceptible to criticism, but, when taken as a whole, correctly state the law, and are free from error. Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142; Thomas v. State, 109 Ala. 25, 19 So. 403; Sherrer v. State, 16 Ala.App. 190, 76 So. 474.
The sufficiency of the proof to establish the corpus delicti in a criminal case is a question for the jury, and not for the court, if there is any proof tending to show it, and this proof may be of a circumstantial nature. It is not required to be shown by direct proof. Hall v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. State
...If there is any evidence tending to prove the corpus delicti, the sufficiency of the proof is a question for the jury. Driver et al v. State, 18 Ala.App. 261, 89 So. 897; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. The jury should consider the directly proven facts together with the circumstances reflected b......
-
Gurley v. State, 6 Div. 432
...or direct, to establish the corpus delicti, the sufficiency of such proof is for the jury and not for the court. Driver v. State, 18 Ala.App. 261, 89 So. 897; Moss v. State, 32 Ala.App. 250, 25 So.2d 700, certiorari denied 247 Ala. 595, 25 So.2d 703. There was no error in the refusal of the......
-
Johnson v. State, 1 Div. 79
...or direct, to establish the corpus delicti, the sufficiency of such proof is for the jury and not for the court. Driver v. State, 18 Ala.App. 261, 89 So. 897; Moss v. State, 32 Ala.App. 250, 25 So.2d 700, certiorari denied, 247 Ala. 595, 25 So.2d It is readily recognized that ordinarily a l......
- Jackson v. State