Lаrry Townsend was indicted for burglary along with Richard Dave Brown and appeals his conviction and sentencе of 10 years in prison and probation.
1. Townsend contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal because the state failed to prove his participation in the crime by corrоboration of the accomplice Brown’s testimony. We do not agree.
Brown testified that he and Townsеnd worked together and on the morning of the burglary while driving around in Brown’s truck they discussed their lack of money for Christmas. Tоwnsend stated he knew where they could get some guns, described how to get there and who owned the home where they were located. Brown and Townsend went there, broke in and took a number of hunting rifles and pistols, a сolor TV set and a chain saw. They went to Townsend’s home and contacted Jerry Mincey who was interestеd in buying the guns. Brown and Townsend went to Mincey’s place of employment and Brown showed the guns to Mincey and two other men, Richard Webb and Richard Cronic. Mincey bought four guns for $225 and Brown gave this money to Townsend, having agreed that Townsend would get the proceeds of the sale of the guns, and he would get the TV set. Townsend swore that he wаs drunk and did not know whether he participated in the burglary or not.
Mincey testified that Townsend was seated in Brown’s truсk and appeared sleepy but recognized and talked to him. Webb testified that when Townsend was asked if hе had any shells for a particular gun he found some in his pocket and furnished them to Brown. The burglary victim stated that Townsend had lived next door for a year, that he had known him as a friend of his son for many years, and that Townsend had visited in his home on several occasions and was familiar with where the guns were kept.
This corroborating evidence as to Townsend’s participation in the burglary was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Code Ann. § 38-121 that such cor
*744
roboration do more than tend to cast a grave suspicion of guilt on the accused.
West v. State,
2. The trial court did not err in charging on parties to a crime (Criminal Code § 26-801). " 'While this Code section does not use the word "conspiracy” it is plain that it embodies the theory of conspiracy insofar as it renders onе not directly involved in the commission of a crime responsible as a party thereto.’
Scott v. State,
The corroborated evidence here conclusively established that Townsend and Brown were together on the day of the burglary; that Townsend had a thorough knowledge of the home burglarized; that he was in the immediate presence of the stolen goods when they were sold and conversed with the purchasers; and that he did not know whether or not he had committеd the crime due to self-induced intoxication. This was sufficient to authorize the charge, for a conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence. "To warrant the court in charging the jury on a given topic it is not necessary that the evidence should shine upon it with a clear light but 'it is enough if glimpses of it be afforded by the evidеnce.’
*745
Brown v. Matthews,
3. Townsend complains of the court’s charge on recent unexplained possession of stolen property, asserting that there was no evidence of any of the stolen goods being in his possession. "In
Thomas v. State,
4. Townsend’s assertion that the trial court improperly expressed an opinion to the jury that Brown was an accomplice is not sustained by the record. The jury instructions cover ten pages of transcript аnd the only portion complained of is the statement, "Now the State contends that they have shown the guilt of Larry Townsend ... by the testimony of a co-defendant/accomplice. . .” This is not an expression of oрinion: " 'A charge, torn to pieces and scattered in disjointed fragments, may seem objectionable, аlthough when put together and considered as a whole, it may be perfectly sound. The full charge being in the record, what it lacks when divided is supplied when the parts are all united. United they stand, divided they fall.’
Brown v. Matthews,
Judgment affirmed.