From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parks v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Dec 15, 1925
106 So. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)

Opinion

4 Div. 150.

December 15, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; N.D. Denson, Judge.

Seab Parks was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

McDowell McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.

There being no proof of the corpus delicti, defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 536. An allegation in an indictment for larceny as to possession and ownership must be met by proof. Matthews v. State, 18 Ala. App. 222, 90 So. 52; Johnson v. State, 111 Ala. 66, 20 So. 590.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

The corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The affirmative charge was properly refused.


Appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny. Not an exception was reserved on the trial of the case, and the record is in all things regular. The only error urged here is the refusal of the trial court to give in appellant's favor the duly requested general affirmative charge.

It would not be helpful to detail or discuss the evidence. We have carefully examined same, and are of the opinion that it was ample to support the verdict returned. The corpus delicti, as well as the appellant's guilty agency, were susceptible to proof by circumstantial evidence.

Finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Parks v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Dec 15, 1925
106 So. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
Case details for

Parks v. State

Case Details

Full title:PARKS v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Dec 15, 1925

Citations

106 So. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
21 Ala. App. 193

Citing Cases

Zeigler v. State

Both the corpus delicti of the crime and the appellant's guilty agency may be proved by circumstantial…

Williamson v. State

The corpus delicti, as well as the guilty agency of the accused, may be proved by circumstantial evidence.…