discussing the "test by which circumstantial evidence is to be measured by the jury in its deliberations" and how it differs from the test used by the "trial judge in his consideration of the accused's motion for a directed verdict"
How later courts described this case
- discussing the "test by which circumstantial evidence is to be measured by the jury in its deliberations" and how it differs from the test used by the "trial judge in his consideration of the accused's motion for a directed verdict"
- on motion for directed verdict, trial court is concerned with existence of evidence, not its weight; he must submit the case to the jury if there be any substantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced
- "The 'corroboration rule' requires that extra-judicial confessions of a defendant be corroborated by proof aliunde of the corpus delicti."
- "To prove constructive possession, the State must show a defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion and control, over the [drugs]." (alteration by Jackson
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Stukes, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret that I cannot concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Legge. I think the issue of appellant’s guilt was properly submitted to the jury.
The “assorted whiskies” were in an upstairs room over his cafe-pool room (also referred to in the testimony as a beer tavern) and the evidence indicated that he had at least equal access to the key to the room. He owned the building. It is quite understandable that the jury discredited the testimony of his employee-roomer. It is difficult to believe that any reasonable jury would have accepted it as the truth.
Oxner, J., concurs.