Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 325 |
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 546,79 So. 802 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Raymond Smith was convicted under an indictment charging grand larceny, receiving stolen property, etc., and appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. R. Brassell and Brassell & Brassell, all of Montgomery, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, jointly with another, who was not on trial in this case, for the offense of grand larceny in counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, and for receiving stolen property, etc., in the third count. There was a general verdict of guilty as charged, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of three years.
On this appeal it is first contended that the corpus delicti was not proven. However, an examination of the testimony, as shown by the bill of exceptions in this case, discloses the fact that there is no merit in this contention. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court, and by this court that it is not indispensable to the proof of the corpus delicti that it should be proven by positive direct evidence. It may be proven by facts and circumstances from which the jury might legally infer that the offense has been committed. Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868; Truett v. State, 10 Ala.App. 108, 64 So. 529. In the instant case, the testimony of state's witnesses Chandler, King and Gates afforded ample evidence from which the jury could legally infer that the offense charged had been committed.
The objection of the defendant to the testimony of the witness King that he saw Benjamin with the alleged stolen property at or near the Western Depot came too late, as the objection was not made until after the question had been asked the witness and his answer thereto given, and the court did not err in overruling it. Moreover, this testimony was relevant as a circumstance going to prove the corpus delicti.
The statement of Benjamin that the defendant gave him the barrel of sugar, the property alleged to have been stolen, is treated by defendant's counsel as a confession, and his objections in the court below and argument in brief here are based upon this theory: it being contended by him that no proper predicate had been laid for the introduction of this statement, and that the corpus delicti was not proven, etc. This statement of Benjamin, as testified to by several witnesses, was in no sense a confession by him, but was an inculpatory statement in the nature of an accusation made in the presence of the defendant, who stood silent, and the statement or accusation was not corrected or denied by him. The well-settled rule in relation to evidence of this character is that the statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovejoy v. State
... ... to learn about the butcher knife that the dead man had?' ... assumes as true a fact which was in dispute ... The ... solicitor asked a State's witness whether or not she knew ... the wife of the deceased. The affirmative answer came before ... the objections were interposed. Smith v. State, 16 ... Ala.App. 546, 79 So. 802 ... The ... court allowed the State to prove that a witness saw Johnnie ... Lovejoy, son of the defendant, in bed with the wife of the ... deceased subsequently to the time of the killing. This ... identical question was decided on a former ... ...
-
Bowman v. State
...state what the appellant said to him prior to the difficulty. The objection to the question came after the answer thereto. Smith v. State, 16 Ala.App. 546, 79 So. 802; Jones v. Daniel, 34 Ala.App. 490, 41 So.2d Another witness was interrogated with reference to a conversation he had with th......
-
Kornegay v. State
...an immaterial inquiry, but, this aside, there were no objections interposed to the question and the answer was responsive. Smith v. State, 16 Ala.App. 546, 79 So. 802; Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d The court allowed a State's witness to answer whether or not in his best judgmen......
-
Jackson v. State
...analysis. In some instances objections came after answers to questions. Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633; Smith v. State, 16 Ala.App. 546, 79 So. 802. In order instances after the court ruled no exceptions were reserved. Gray v. State, 30 Ala.App. 190, 6 So.2d 901; White v. St......