Holcomb v. State

164 So. 300, 26 Ala. App. 593, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 204
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided November 19, 1935·No. 7 Div. 141.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

Burglary under our law is the breaking and entering' certain structures named in the statute (Code 1923, § 3479) with felonious intent. When the breaking is shown by the evidence and it appears that at the time of the breaking personal property was stolen, the possession by defendant of all or a part of such stolen property, if unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury, is sufficient upon which to predicate a judgment of guilt. 9 C.J. 1082 (145) (3).

In the instant case the corpus' delicti was proven without dispute, and at 10 o’clock a. m., after the storehouse had been burglarized, the defendant and another were found in possession of a part of the merchandise stolen from the storehouse. The question was properly submitted to the jury and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holcomb v. State, 164 So. 300, 26 Ala. App. 593, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 204 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

164 So. 300 (Holcomb v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
401 So. 2d 185 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1981)
Pugh v. State
376 So. 2d 1135 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Jackson v. State
50 So. 2d 455 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1951)