Public-domain · open source

16 Ala. App. 219

77 So 57

Thomas v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1917

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1917-06-30

<p>1. Larceny <&wkey;43 — Hog Theft — Possession of Parts of Hog — Evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution for hog theft, testimony that the owner found the parts of a freshly butchered hog in defendant’s possession, the head of which he identified as being marked with his mark, in connection with his evidence that he had lost two sows marked with his mark, was admissible as tending to prove the corpus delicti.</p> <p>2. Larceny &wkey;>43 — Hog Theft — Possession of Parts of Butchered Hog — Evidence.</p> <p>In such prosecution, evidence of the owner that he found parts of a freshly; butchered hog, other than the head, marked with his mark in defendant’s possession, was admissible.</p> <p>3. Larceny <&wkey;68(l) — Hog Theft — Jury’s Duty to Draw Inference. '</p> <p>In a prosecution for hog theft, it was the province of the jury to draw an inference from the evidence that the hog whose parts were found in defendant’s possession was one of those lost by the owner, and that its possession was larcenously acquired by defendant.</p> <p>4. Larceny t&wkey;40(2) — Variance—Hog Theft —Proof of Theft of Single Hog.</p> <p>In a prosecution for hog theft, it was nol; incumbent on the state to prove that defendant stole two hogs or sows; proof of the theft of one was sufficient.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>5. Larceny <&wkey;68(l) — Hog Theft — Proof of Corpus Delicti — Question for Jury.</p> <p>In a prosecution for hog theft, whether the evidence proved the corpus delicti held for the jury.</p>

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1942

5 state decisions

Relies on Smith v. State · State v. Murphy · Fowler v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROWN, P. J.

¶1[1] The fact that Beckham found the parts of a freshly butchered hog in the possession of the defendant, the head of which he identified as being marked with his mark, in connection with his evidence that he had lost two sows marked with his mark, was admissible as tending to prove the corpus delicti, and the objection and motion of the defendant to exclude this evidence was properly overruled. Fowler v. State, 100 Ala. 99, 14 South. 860.

¶2• [2] For like reasons, the motion of the defendant to exclude the evidence of this witness that he found parts of a hog, other than the head, was properly overruled.

¶3[3] The evidence afforded an inference, which it was the province of the jury to draw, that the hog, the parts of which were found in the defendant’s possession, was one of the hogs lost by the witness Beckham, and that its possession was larcenously acquired by the defendant.

“If the evidence affords an inference of the larceny of the goods, then the question of its sufficiency is one for the jury, and it becomes their ^province to determine whether the corpus delicti has been proven.” Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 South. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep. 21; Daniels v. State, 12 Ala. App. 119, 68 South. 499.

¶4[4] It was not incumbent upon the state to prove that the defendant stole two hogs or sows; proof of one was sufficient. Bates *220v. State, 152 Ala. 77, 44 South. 695; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 846; Marsh v. State, 3 Ala. App. 80, 57 South. 387.

¶5We find no error in the record.

¶6Affirmed.