Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1896 |
| Citation | 109 Ala. 25,19 So. 403 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.
Allen Thomas was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
John W A. Sanford, Jr., for appellant.
W. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the larceny of a pocketbook and contents from the person of Ben Jones. The pocketbook and money of Jones was found on the person of the defendant, the night of the alleged larceny, or early the next morning. There was some evidence tending to show the commission of the offense, independent of the finding of the property upon the person of the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that no offense had been committed, and that Jones, while drinking earlier in the night, dropped the pocketbook, which was picked up by defendant, and by him offered to Jones, and that Jones requested him to keep it for the present. This is the explanation given by the defendant and in which he was corroborated by other testimony, of his possession of the property. The recent possession of the property by the defendant, and its ownership, were not controverted. The real controverted question in the prosecution was whether, in fact, a larceny had been committed. At the request of the solicitor, the court charged the jury as follows: (1) "The law presumes, from the unexplained recent possession of stolen goods, that the possessor is the thief." (2) "The unexplained possession of stolen goods recently after the commission of the offense is, prima facie, guilty possession, and that the possessor is the thief, unless he explain the possession to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury." The principle of law asserted in these charges has been held to be correct in some of the decisions of this court and other courts, and by some text writers. It must be observed, however, that none of them, so far as we are aware, hold that the unexplained possession by one person of goods belonging to another raises the presumption that a larceny or burglary has been committed, and that the possessor is a thief. Additional evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti. Unless the jury are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offense has been committed, the unexplained recent possession of goods will not justify the conclusion that the person in whose possession they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eldridge v. State
...jury is satisfied from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, the jury should acquit." Thomas v. State, 109 Ala. 25, 27, 19 So. 403 (1895). property is to shift the burden of going forward with evidence to&......
-
Bills v. State
...to restore same to the owner. James v. State, 15 Ala.App. 569, 74 So. 395; Jeffries v. State, 7 Ala.App. 144, 62 So. 270; Thomas v. State, 109 Ala. 25, 19 So. 403; Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 536; Aline Clisby v. State, ante (17 Ala.App.) p. 475, 86 So. We ar......
-
Braxton v. State
... ... This fact, standing alone, was entirely insufficient ... to warrant the submission of the question to the jury ... Johnson v. State, 13 Ala.App. 193, 68 So. 687; ... Jeffries v. State, 7 Ala.App. 144, 62 So. 270; ... Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L.R.A ... (N.S.) 536; Thomas v. State, 109 Ala. 25, 19 So ... 403; Orr v. State, 107 Ala. 35, 18 So. 142; ... Griggs v. State, 58 Ala. 425, 29 Am.Rep. 762 ... It is ... undoubtedly true that the corpus delicti, like any other ... fact, may be established by circumstantial evidence, and when ... a chain of ... ...
-
Hunt v. State
...to restore same to the owner. James v. State, 15 Ala.App. 569, 74 So. 395; Jeffries v. State, 7 Ala.App. 144, 62 So. 270; Thomas v. State, 109 Ala. 25, 19 So. 403; Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 536; Aline Clisby v. State, ante (17 Ala.App.) p. 475, 86 So. We are......