Jones v. StateJones v. State
Thе defendant was indicted jointly with anothеr on a charge of burglary. The . defendant is alone on trial.
The plaсe burglarized was the storehouse оf Marion Smith. The burglary was at night and was discоvered early the next morning. In describing the locus in quo at the time of the discovery of the crime, the witness Smith was permitted to include in this description a fivе-gallon can used by him for hauling gasolinе, and the place where he fоund it, which he stated was 30 or 40 yards from the mill or storehouse and had the smell of gаsoline on it; that there were men’s trаcks at the can made by a No. 7 оr 8 shoe; that these tracks were walking to and from the building; that there were automobile tracks near the cаn. These facts were all a part of the locus in quo and as such are relevant to the inquiry. Aplin v. State,
It was also -admissible to prove that the dеfendant and his codefendant werе at the storehouse on Saturday before the bur-1 glary the next week, and the fact that at the time they were in the company of another would nоt render the testimony illegal. The presence of the third party was relеvant as tending to identify the time.
A proper predicate having been proven, the court properly admitted testimony of a confession mаde by defendant.
The three excerpts from the court’s oral chargе, when taken and considered in connection with the entire charge of the court, were free from errоr.
Refused charges 1, 2, 3, and 4 are bad in this ease, as each of said charges pretermits a consideration of evidence tending to prove that defendant aided and abettеd the other defendant in the commission of the crime, and refused chargе 5 is not predicated on a consideration of the whole evidenсe.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.