Court Opinion

ID: 9825405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:53:58.071746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:47.181213
License: Public Domain

BROWN, P. J.
[1] The fact that Beckham found the parts of a freshly butchered hog in the possession of the defendant, the head of which he identified as being marked with his mark, in connection with his evidence that he had lost two sows marked with his mark, was admissible as tending to prove the corpus delicti, and the objection and motion of the defendant to exclude this evidence was properly overruled. Fowler v. State, 100 Ala. 99, 14 South. 860.
• [2] For like reasons, the motion of the defendant to exclude the evidence of this witness that he found parts of a hog, other than the head, was properly overruled.
[3] The evidence afforded an inference, which it was the province of the jury to draw, that the hog, the parts of which were found in the defendant’s possession, was one of the hogs lost by the witness Beckham, and that its possession was larcenously acquired by the defendant.
“If the evidence affords an inference of the larceny of the goods, then the question of its sufficiency is one for the jury, and it becomes their ^province to determine whether the corpus delicti has been proven.” Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 South. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep. 21; Daniels v. State, 12 Ala. App. 119, 68 South. 499.
[4] It was not incumbent upon the state to prove that the defendant stole two hogs or sows; proof of one was sufficient. Bates *220v. State, 152 Ala. 77, 44 South. 695; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 846; Marsh v. State, 3 Ala. App. 80, 57 South. 387.
We find no error in the record.
Affirmed.