B. Foster, Judge. Ed and Jim Belser were convicted of grand larceny, and they appeal. The charge was the larceny of certain cows. The following is charge-refused to defendant: The court charges the jury that possession of recently stolen property is a circumstance tending to prove that the possessor thereof is the guilty agent, and that the bnrden of proof is on lii-m to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he came honestly into the possession of same.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1918-06-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1988
19 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.
¶1
[1-4]
No brief has come to the hands of the court. Charge - requested in writing by the defendant is abstract and does not assert the true rule as to the burden of proof. Charge 1 is entirely abstract. The correct proposition of law applicable to this ease was fully and clearly stated in the oral charge of the court. Charge 2 does not state a correct proposition of law as applied to the testimony of accomplices as provided in section 7897, Code 1907. The test of complicity is: Could the witness be indicted for the offense either as principal or accessory? If not, he is competent. Bass v. State, 37 Ala. 469. An accessory after the fact is a separate and distinct offense, made so by section 6220 of the Code of 1907.
¶2
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
