Simmons v. State, 37471
| Decision Date | 13 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37471,37471 |
| Citation | 44 So.2d 857,208 Miss. 523 |
| Parties | SIMMONS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. U. Corley, Collins, for appellants.
Geo. H. Ethridge, Acting Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellants were jointly indicted, tried and convicted of grand larceny arising out of the theft of a yearling valued at $100.00. On several occasions they admitted the crime and these admissions were received in evidence over objection of appellants after a preliminary inquiry in the absence of the jury.
Appellants contend that these admissions were improperly submitted to the jury because the corpus delicti was not sufficiently proved. The proof offered by the State prior to the confessions shows that the yearling in question, without the consent of the owner, was removed in the nighttime from a secure enclosure where it was penned with other cattle; there had been a rain on that evening and the ground was muddy; upon discovery of the absence of the yearling from the enclosure, its owner and one of his employees found tracks of the yearling and also tracks of two men leading from the pen and along a road for about one-half mile and then leading from the road into an old field about one hundred yards from the road where the yearling was found with a long rope tied about its horns and head and at that point there were still the tracks of the two men. The appellants were seen in the road and identified while the search was being made for the yearling and upon being accosted they fled into the woods. One of them was apprehended before daylight on the next morning at the home of his brother, and the other was apprehended a day later. They not only admitted the taking of the yearling but said that they had arrangements made with the owner of a truck who was to haul the yearling away for sale at a distant market.
We are of the opinion that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established to justify admission of the confessions in evidence. In 32 Am.Jur., p. 896, Larceny, Section 10, it is said: In this case every essential element of larceny except the intent was shown by the evidence, and the intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the taking, i. e., that it occurred under the cover of darkness and that after the asportation the property was concealed. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goff v. State
...(affirming the trial court's denial of a requested two-theory instruction in Thompson phraseology). ¶ 157. In Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857, 858-59 (1950), we affirmed the trial court's denial of the two-theory instruction, on a finding that the case was not circumstantial. ......
-
Drummer v. State
...the “intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property.” Lewis v. State, 248 So.2d 805, 806 (Miss.1971) ; accord Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857 (1950) ; Hubbard v. State, 41 So.2d 1 (Miss.1949) ; Littlejohn v. State, 59 Miss. 273 (1881).5 This was raised by Drummer on a......
-
Pearson v. State, 42825
...See Buchanan v. State, 5 So. 617 (Miss.); Littlejohn v. State, 59 Miss. 273; Crabb v. State, 152 Miss. 602, 120 So. 569; Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857; Smith v. State, 214 Miss. 453, 59 So.2d 74; Crouse v. State, 229 Miss. 15, 89 So.2d 919; Hubbard v. State, 41 So.2d 1 (Miss......
-
Rogers v. State
...had been committed, and therefore established the corpus delicti. Yates v. State, 172 Miss. 581, 161 So. 147. See also Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857. Consequently the confession was properly admitted; and when it was added to the evidence, which had been previously adduced, ......