Ivy v. State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1913 |
| Citation | 160 S.W. 208,109 Ark. 446 |
| Parties | IVY v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Fink & Dinning, for appellant.
1. There is not sufficient legal evidence to sustain the verdict.
2. The ownership of a building alleged to have been burglarized is material, and must be proved as alleged. 102 Ark. 627; 73 Ark. 34.
3. The corpus delicti is not established.
Wm. L Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
1. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and the jury's finding upon conflicting testimony is conclusive unless there is no evidence at all upon which to base it.
With regard to extra-judicial confessions, this court has said that "the confession of a defendant, if accompanied with proof that the crime was committed by some one, will warrant a conviction, if the jury believe it." 107 Ark. 568; Turner v. State, 109 Ark. 332.
2. The ownership of the building and goods was proved as alleged in the indictment. In this respect this case is controlled by the Andrews case, 100 Ark. 184-186.
The appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction under an indictment, charging him with burglary and grand larceny, by entering the store of A. Hirsch & Co. and stealing a suit of clothes of the value of twenty dollars, it being alleged that said company was the owner of both the storehouse and the suit of clothes, and was a partnership composed of Ludwig Hirsch and Mrs. Gertie Groneau. The testimony does not disclose whether A. Hirsch & Co. was a partnership, nor whether it was composed of the persons as alleged.
It appears from the evidence that the storehouse occupied by A. Hirsch & Co. was broken into in the night time and a suit of clothes of the kind described in the indictment taken therefrom.
Wash Bell testified that he was a partner in the restaurant business with appellant and that in August, 1911, he (appellant) brought this suit of clothes to the place of business and let Will Mayberry have it; and afterwards told him that he got it from Hirsch & Co. in the night. Appellant denied having made any such statements and also that he ever had in his possession this suit of clothes or sold the same to Will Mayberry, and claimed it was sold by Wash Bell. Mayberry, who had the suit of clothes in his possession, told the officer he got it from Bell.
There is much other testimony tending also to show that Bell did dispose of the suit of clothes to Mayberry.
It is contended for reversal that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, and that there is a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof in the case.
It is true that there is no evidence, showing that the firm of A. Hirsch & Co. was composed of the individuals as named in the indictment, and the proof is slight that said company was a partnership.
One witness stated that the suit of clothes belonged to A. Hirsch & Co., and that that firm was the only one in town handling goods of that kind, and that he was in charge of the clothing department and would have known if the sale of it had been made. That although he was not always...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cope
...the evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti must also identify the defendant as the one who committed the crime. Ivy v. State, 109 Ark. 446, 160 S.W. 208; People v. Jones, 123 Cal. 65, 55 P. 698; Wigginton v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 282, 17 S.W. 634; Weller v. State, 150 Md. 278, 132 ......
- McLemore v. State
- Shufflin v. State
- Davis and Thomas v. State