16 Ala. App. 367 - Dean v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 1998 · most notably Leith v. State (1921), 18 Ala. App. 578 - Leverett v. State (1922)

54 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

SaMEORD, J.

¶1 As has been many times declared, the statutes directed against the various kinds of adultery and fornication are against a state or condition of cohabitation, the parties intending to continue so long as they choose, as distinguished from a single act of illicit sexual intercourse. Brown v. State, 108 Ala. 18, 18 South. 811; Hall v. State, 53 Ala. 463.

¶2 We have read and re-read the evidence as shown by the bill of exceptions, and, while we do not deem it necessary to set it out in its vulgar detail, we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence offered is not sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Admitting that one act was proven and corroborated, there is an entire absence of any evidence tending to prove the crime charged.

¶3 For the rulings of the trial court in conflict with the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

¶4 Reversed and remanded.

BROWN, P. J.

¶5 (dissenting). It is well settled that when there is any evidence at all haring even the slightest tendency to prove the corpus delicti, the case is for the jury. Daniels v. State, 12 Ala. App. 119, 68 South. 499. There ivas evidence in my opinion clearly tending to prove the corpus delicti— the living together in a state of adultery— and the case was properly submitted to tbe jury. I am further of opinion that the jury reached the correct conclusion on the evidence, and that the ease should be affirmed.