Truett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Truett v. State

64 So. 529, 10 Ala. App. 108, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 147

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 64 So. 529 (Truett 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

Truett v. State, 64 So. 529, 10 Ala. App. 108, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 147 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was convicted of petit larceny. The article stolen was a gold shirt button of the value of $2, the property of one Alex Johnson.

No exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been reserved, except to the action of the court in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence, and discharge the defendant, on the ground that the corpus delicti had not been proven. It is not indispensable to the proof of the corpus delicti that it should be proven by positive direct evidence. It may be proven by facts and circumstances from which the jury might legally infer that the offense has been committed. . — Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 15 South. 868. The testimony of Johnson afforded ample evidence from which the jury could legally infer that the offense charged had been committed in the present case. The evidence of the commission of the offense, and the defendant’s guilty connection thereAvith, was sufficient to submit the case to the jury, and the court properly refused the general charge requested by the defendant.

No error is shoAvn, and the judgment of the trial court Avill be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was convicted of petit larceny. The article stolen was a gold shirt button of the value of $2, the property of one Alex Johnson.

No exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been reserved, except to the action of the court in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence, and discharge the defendant, on the ground that the corpus delicti had not been proven. It is not indispensable to the proof of the corpus delicti that it should be proven by positive direct evidence. It may be proven by facts and circumstances from which the jury might legally infer that the offense has been committed. . — Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 15 South. 868. The testimony of Johnson afforded ample evidence from which the jury could legally infer that the offense charged had been committed in the present case. The evidence of the commission of the offense, and the defendant’s guilty connection thereAvith, was sufficient to submit the case to the jury, and the court properly refused the general charge requested by the defendant.

No error is shoAvn, and the judgment of the trial court Avill be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 529, 10 Ala. App. 108, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truett-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack