In a homicide case the necessary constituents of the corpus delicti which must be proven are the death of the person named in the indictment and the criminal agency causing death. Underhill, Cr.Evi., 4th Ed., 1081; §§ 552-554; 41 C.J.S. Homicide, § 312, p. 7. Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Slaughter v. State, 21 Ala. App. 211, 106 So. 891; Shamberger v. State, 221 Ala. 538, 130 So. 70. In a prosecution for murder, wounds or scars on other persons resulting from the same transaction may be exhibited to the jury where they are relevant to a matter in issue, but not where they do not serve to throw light on any matter connected with the proper solution of the case, and their only effect is to inflame the minds of the jury.
Sidgreaves v. Myatt, 22 Ala. 617; Thorn v. Kemp, 98 Ala. 714, 13 So. 749; Sullivan v. Miller, 224 Ala. 395, 140 So. 606. Objections as to the knife and witness Cawley being confined to the ground that witness was not under the rule, defendant waived other grounds of objection. 18 Ala.Dig., Trial, 75. Argument of the solicitor, to which objection was made, was authorized. Defendant, in standing up at request of his counsel, testified for himself. Smith v. State, 247 Ala. 354, 24 So.2d 546; Wells v. State, 211 Ala. 616, 101 So. 626; Id., 20 Ala. App. 240, 101 So. 624. Where objection is to the whole of the comment in argument, if a part of the comment was lawful objection should be overruled. 6 Ala.Dig., Crim.Law, 728(4); Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665. Whether argument should be excluded rests largely in the discretion of the court in the light of all the circumstances. Smith v. State, supra.
As for the ground of the motion for new trial "For that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence," the rule applicable is: "Unless, after allowing all reasonable presumption of its [the verdict's] correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust," the trial court will not be held to have erred in overruling the motion. Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 So. 272, 278; Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665. After full consideration of the evidence we are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and as for this ground, the motion was overruled without error.
Evidence tending to establish intent or motive of an accused is admissible even though somewhat inflammatory if its admission is shown to have been restricted as much as possible by the trial court. Miller v. State, 130 Ala. 1, 30 So. 379; Davis v. State, 213 Ala. 541, 105 So. 677; Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Sims v. Struthers, 267 Ala. 80, 100 So.2d 23. Evidence of the commission of other crimes by the accused is admissible when such other crimes were a part of the same transaction and separation of the testimony was not practical. Grant v. State, 250 Ala. 164, 33 So.2d 466; Willingham v. State, 261 Ala. 454, 74 So.2d 241. PER CURIAM.
The statute does not make the crime larceny. Code 1923, § 4925; Cobb v. State, 100 Ala. 19, 14 So. 362; Dillehay v. State, 18 Ala. App. 271, 90 So. 332. The Court will not review a ruling on motion for new trial where evidence supporting grounds of the motion does not appear in the bill of exceptions. Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Johnson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 72, 88 So. 353; Code 1923, § 6088. RICE, Judge.
Before a confession may be admitted it is not incumbent upon the State to introduce evidence tending to identify the accused as the guilty agent applying the unlawful force causing death. Hall v. State, 247 Ala. 263, 24 So.2d 20; Johnson v. State, 247 Ala. 271, 24 So.2d 17; Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593, 196 So. 96; Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8. Circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti and if facts are presented from which the jury may reasonably infer the crime has been committed, the question must be submitted to the jury, and other evidence tending to implicate the accused is thereby rendered admissible.
When defendant was arrested before the body was discovered there was found under his bed a pair of brogan water soaked shoes, and when asked how his shoes became wet he stated that he went in swimming. Proof going to show that death resulted from force unlawfully applied is all that the law requires as a predicate for the introduction of the confession voluntarily made. Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593, 196 So. 96; Simmons v. State, 16 Ala. App. 645, 81 So. 137; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8; Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665. The appellant's contention therefore that there was not sufficient proof of the corpus delicti is without merit. The testimony shows without dispute that the confession made by the defendant to the effect that he caused the death of the deceased by holding her head under the water in the pool, where he carried her, until she quit kicking was voluntary and properly received in evidence.
Proof of death as a result of force unlawfully applied is all that the law requires as a predicate for the introduction of a confession voluntarily made. It is not incumbent upon the State before a confession may be admitted to introduce evidence tending to identify the accused as the guilty agent applying the unlawful force causing death. Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593, 196 So. 96; Jordon v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8. The rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti and if facts are presented from which the jury may reasonably infer the crime has been committed, the question must be submitted to the jury, and other evidence tending to implicate the accused is thereby rendered admissible.
No reversible error is shown. Sullivan v. State, 23 Ala. App. 10, 119 So. 243; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Jordan v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Carmichael v. State, 197 Ala. 185, 72 So. 405; Brothers v. State, 236 Ala. 448, 449, 183 So. 433; Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 113 So. 67; Smith v. State, 187 Miss. 96, 192 So. 436; Foster v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 277 S.W. 1095. Carmichael, Crenshaw Simmons, of Opp, D. M. Powell, of Greenville, and Powell, Albritton Albritton, of Andalusia, opposed.
Miller v. State, 77 Ala. 41; Green v. State, 68 Ala. 539; Carter v. State, 68 Ala. 96; Ray v. State, 66 Ala. 281; Stone v. State, 63 Ala. 115; Pines v. State, 50 Ala. 153; Fisher v. State, 43 Ala. 17. Under an indictment for burglary the State is required to prove the building in question was broken into and this may be done by direct or circumstantial evidence. Harmon v. State, 21 Ala. App. 377, 108 So. 643. The corpus delicti in prosecution for burglary must be established by evidence on behalf of the State beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, which is breaking and entering; and if this is not done, there can be no conviction. Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 34, 65 So. 351; Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444, 93 So. 460; Jordon v. State, 225 Ala. 350, 142 So. 665; Lewis v. State, 220 Ala. 461, 125 So. 802; Wells v. State, 187 Ala. 1, 65 So. 950; Ratliff v. State, 212 Ala. 410, 102 So. 621. On question of review, see dissenting opinion in Woodson v. State, 170 Ala. 87, 54 So. 191. Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Vardaman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.