"[I]f the evidence affords an inference that a [theft] has been committed, its sufficiency is for the jury and it is their duty to determine whether the corpus delicti has been proved." Gunaca v. State, 383 So.2d 590, 598 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). In discussing the proof of a prima facie case of larceny (now theft) in Simpson v. State, 354 So.2d 317, 321 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 324 (Ala. 1978), we noted:
Her direct testimony was, therefore, unnecessary in this instance. See Gunaca v. State, 383 So.2d 590 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980). III
It is well established that possession of recently stolen property raises an inference of guilt sufficient to submit the issue to the jury for consideration, and that the credibility of the defendant's explanation of the possession of such stolen property is a question for the jury. Bullock v. State, 400 So.2d 937 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), Simas v. State, 410 So.2d 139 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 410 So.2d 139 (Ala. 1981); Gunaca v. State, 383 So.2d 590 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). In the case before us the State proved that appellant was found in possession of the stolen firearm two hours after the discovery of its theft, raising the inference that appellant was the thief.
In proving the corpus delicti, which "may be defined in its primary sense as the fact that a crime actually has been committed", Malone v. State, 37 Ala. App. 432, 434, 71 So.2d 99 (1953), cert. denied, 260 Ala. 699, 71 So.2d 101 (1954), the State is not required to produce direct evidence, but may rely on facts and circumstances which afford an inference that a crime has occurred. See Tice, supra; Gunaca v. State, 383 So.2d 590 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). The corpus delicti of a theft consists of two elements: "(1) That property was lost, and (2) that it was lost as a result of felonious taking."
The issue of appellant's guilt or innocence was for the jury. Smith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 401 So.2d 185, Certiorari Denied, Ala., 401 So.2d 187; Gunaca v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 383 So.2d 590; Harper v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 389 So.2d 184; Wilkins v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 373 So.2d 353; Bullock v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 400 So.2d 937. We have searched the record and are of the opinion that reversible error does not appear. The judgment of the trial court is due to be and is hereby affirmed.