Ezell v. State
| Decision Date | 03 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | 29022 |
| Citation | 158 Miss. 343,130 So. 487 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | EZELL et al. v. STATE |
LARCENY. In larceny prosecution based on circumstantial evidence state must prove theft and defendant's connection therewith to exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction of petty larceny of chickens.
In a prosecution, depending entirely upon circumstantial evidence for the crime of larceny, it is necessary for the state to prove to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis the fact of theft and the defendant's connection with the theft. The evidence in this case examined and held insufficient to sustain a conviction.
APPEAL from circuit court of Newton county, HON. D. M. ANDERSON, Judge.
Dewey Ezell and others were convicted of petty larceny, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
R. L. Nichols and Colbert Dudley, for appellant.
The evidence offered by the state should have been excluded and the jury directed to find the defendants not guilty. The state failed to prove the corpus delicti.
Bowman v. State, 112 Miss. 773, 73 So. 787; Dillard v. State, 112 Miss. 826, 73 So. 799; Reily v. State, 103 Miss. 633, 60 So. 725; Sorrells v. State, 130 Miss. 300, 94 So. 209; Hogan v. State, 127 Miss. 407, 90 So. 99; Buchanan v. State (Ala.), 19 So. 410.
In Buchanan v. State (Ala.), 19 So. 410, where evidence as to goods similar to those stolen being in possession of the defendant was admitted it was held error, and in Tunny v. State (Ala.), 20 So. 597, where evidence that defendant sold a number of hogs that were not identified as those stolen it was held error.
Williams v. State (Ala.), 59 So. 528.
W. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The evidence sufficiently and amply shows the identification of the stolen property, and possession thereof immediately following the loss and disappearance thereof, by the appellants. Thus the corpus delicti is fully proven.
The general rule laid down in all the textbooks is that to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence, every rational hypothesis except that of guilt must be excluded. I submit that the evidence in the instant case, tested by the rule above quoted, meets the requirements thereof in every particular. There is no other rational hypothesis, that may be drawn from the evidence except that of guilt.
The appellants were indicted and convicted in the circuit court of petit larceny, the indictment charging that they did The indictment was amended at the trial so as to read Will Russell instead of Robert Russell.
The testimony for the state showed that the chickens were missed the latter part of May, and that they were of a breed known as Rhode Island Reds; that they roosted in trees across the road from the house of Russell. Russell also testified that about the same time a small turkey hen of the common variety disappeared; that this turkey was small and would weigh from six to seven pounds. Evidence as to the turkey was objected to, the indictment charging no theft of the turkey. The district attorney stated that the purpose of the inquiry as to the turkey was to find out what disappeared, and it was a circumstance. The court admitted it, and exception was taken. The state witness testified that the hens and turkey disappeared the latter part of May, but he did not fix definitely the day. There was no evidence of tracking any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. State, 42825
...evidence. Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., Sec. 605, p. 1476; Coggins v. State, 234 Miss. 369, 106 So.2d 388; Ezell v. State, 158 Miss. 343, 130 So. 487. The subsequent conduct and dealing with estrayed cattle may be sufficient to establish that the original taking was with an intent......
- McClellan v. State
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blanchard
... ... statute preventing the allowance of an amendment to a ... probated claim, providing such amendment does not state an ... entirely new and different claim or cause of action, and that ... such amendment should have therefore been permitted by the ... ...
-
Robinson v. State
...attempt to identify the equipment further than they did. Appellant argues the "Rhode Island hen" case as being controlling here. Ezell v. State, 130 So. 487. case, along with SorreIls v. State, 130 Miss. 300, 94 So. 209, seems to be rather persuasive upon the argument of appellant. But, aft......