Holcomb v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Holcomb v. State

164 So. 300, 26 Ala. App. 593, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 204

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1935

Docket7 Div. 141.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 So. 300 (Holcomb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 300, 26 Ala. App. 593, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-state-alactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack