Opinion
No. 38407.
April 21, 1952.
1. Criminal law — corpus delicti — confessions.
While it is true that the fact that a crime has been committed may not be shown solely by a confession, yet the proof, without the confession, need show only the probability that a crime has been committed.
2. Criminal procedure — proof of probability of larceny of yearling.
When the case involved the larceny of a yearling, proof that the fence to the pasture where the animal was confined had been broken down, and that the yearling never came back to the pasture or premises of the owner where he had been fed and cared for and that no one had seen him anywhere in the community since his disappearance is sufficient to establish the probability that the animal had been stolen.
3. Confessions — free and voluntary.
The contention of a defendant that his confession was not free and voluntary is properly rejected when it was shown to have have been made in the presence of three disinterested witnesses in addition to the officer; that on his preliminary hearing he plead guilty without any threats, promises, fear or hope of reward, and that on another occasion he had told a friend that he with others had stolen the animal in question.
Headnotes as approved by Roberds, P.J.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Neshoba County; W.E. McINTYRE, SR., Judge.
James W. Lee, for appellant.
I. The trial court erred in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant of not guilty.
II. The trial court erred in admitting the confessions of appellant in evidence when there was not sufficient proof of the corpus delicti aliundi the confessions. Simmons, et al. v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857; Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 481; Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545; Anderson v. State, 186 So. 836; Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 2 So. (2) 818; Ruffin v. State, 205 Miss. 642, 39 So.2d 269; Clark v. State, 48 So.2d 127; Greenlee v. State, 188 Miss. 387, 195 So. 312.
III. The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Ewing, et al. v. State, 9 So.2d 879; Ladner v. State, 9 So.2d 878; Riley v. State, 60 So. 725; Wade v. State, 167 So. 617.
Geo. H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Our Court is committed firmly to the doctrine that where a confession is made by a defendant that the slighter proof of corpus delicti would be sufficient coupled with that confession, and that proving it by a probability so far as corpus delicti is concerned would authorize the admission of the confession in evidence and that circumstantial evidence may be received to establish the corpus delicti. Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857; Anderson v. State, 184 Miss. 892, 186 So. 836; Greenlee v. State, 188 Miss. 387, So. 312.
In this case before us, the fact that the yearling was missed from the farm of the prosecuting witness, that he inquired about it and looked over his place and adjoining places for the yearling, without finding it or any trace of it, coupled with the well-known habit of domestic animals which the jury may know without additional proof that cattle return to their place each night and that it is unusual for any of them to stay away from the place where they have been attended longer than a short period, and then the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Mr. Shackelford, that the defendant told him prior to his arrest that he had been making inquiry down about Decatur for the missing yearling, which was far removed from the locality where the yearling would be expected to be, plus the fact that the appellant was apparently trying to find out what Mr. Shackelford knew about the yearling, if anything, was such as to engender a reasonable suspicion that the yearling had been stolen by appellant.
This evidence is supported also by the fact that a preliminary hearing was had before a justice of the peace at which the appellant plead guilty, and which had heard such evidence as was then produced.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny in the stealing of one yearling of the value of one hundred dollars and sentenced to the state penitentiary for three years.
On this appeal he says the evidence did not establish a crime aliunde confessions. (Hn 1) The rule in this state is that the proof, without the confession, need show only the probability that a crime has been committed. Yates v. State, 172 Miss. 581, 161 So. 147; Anderson v. State, 184 Miss. 892, 186 So. 836; Greenlee v. State, 188 Miss. 387, 195 So. 312; Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 2 So.2d 818; Ruffin v. State, 205 Miss. 642, 39 So.2d 269; Simmons v. State, 208 Miss. 523, 44 So.2d 857.
(Hn 2) The proof in this case, aside from the confessions, that a crime had been committed is that the animal belonged to Mr. J.R. Shackleford; that it was in his pasture with his other cattle on the night before January 1, 1950; that on that morning the yearling was gone; that the fence behind his barn had been trodden down; that he immediately made search and inquiry through the neighborhood without being able to locate or learn anything of the whereabouts of the yearling; that he never came back to the pasture or premises of the owner; that sometime thereafter appellant made a remark to Mr. Shackleford which indicated to him appellant knew why the animal had disappeared. It is reasonable that had the animal not been taken away he would have remained near the pasture and home where he had been fed and cared for; that he would not have gotten so far away that he could not be found. Some one would have seen him or he would have been at some other nearby pasture containing other cattle. We think the foregoing established facts show to a probability a crime had been committed. Yates v. State, and Gross v. State, supra.
Appellant says the proof fails to show that his confessions were freely made. He was arrested and the next day he sent for the marshal of the Town of Union, Mississippi. (Hn 3) He made a confession to the marshal and three other disinterested persons. They all said the confession was entirely free and voluntary. The marshal wrote it down, read it to him and he signed it. In this he explained how the animal was taken, the method of transportation, etc. He said he got it beside the barn, apparently where Mr. Shackleford said the pasture fence had been trodden down. He said he signed the confession because he was afraid Mr. Turner would injure him. There is no proof of that whatever other than his statement. If it be said the Town Marshal had an interest in convicting accused, the other three witnesses were entirely disinterested.
In addition to this it is shown that when the accused was arraigned on the preliminary hearing he plead guilty. There is no proof this plea was brought about by threats, promise, fear, or hope of reward.
And, in addition to this, defendant admitted as a witness on the stand that he had told his friend Mr. Marvin Cox that he and others stole the animal, and this was a free and voluntary statement. He did not claim this confession was the result of any offer or inducement of any kind. Mr. Cox also testified to that effect.
The proof, without the confessions, having shown to a probability a crime had been committed, and that proof, with the confessions, being amply sufficient to justify the jury in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, the further contention of appellant that he was entitled to a directed verdict is without merit.
Affirmed.
Alexander, Hall, Holmes and Arrington, JJ., concur.