ARK.] MANKEY V. STATE. 901 MANKEY V. STATE. Cr. 3986
Opinion delivered June 22, 1936. CRIMINAL LAW—LARCENY—AccomPLICE.--Where, in a prosecution for stealing a hog, the evidence established that the State's witness was an accomplice of defendant in the commission of the crime, it was necessary, under § 3181, C. & M. Dik., that such witness' testimony be corroborated; though the amount of corroborating evidence necessary waS a question for the jury. 2. CRIMINAL LAW—EvIDENCE.—While the testimony of an accomplice in a prosecution for stealing a hog must be corroborated, any substantial evidence, though it may be slight, is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; 8. 111. Bome, Judge ; affirmed. H. S. Grant, for appellant. Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Wil-liams, Assistant, for appellee. BUTLER, J. Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for stealing a hog. The sole ground urged for reversal is that the verdict is not supported by substantial competent testimony. Briefly stated, the evidence
902 MANKEY V. STATE. [192 is. :to the effect that on a Certain • day in • March,..1935, appellant .sold a hog to J. 0. seampbell . and' delivered it to. him in his lot. When.,Campbell went:to the : lot' the next morning, he discovered(the; hog was gone sand saw a mark on.thesground indicating . that it . had. been, dragged ta the road and ,walked owits fore legs.down:it. A ,boy, Carl . Simons, testified that : the . night the h'og ,was: stolen he was standing in front , of, a . little, restaurant when ap-,pellant .came by • with a hag, and asked witness to .help him: take it to : his home. Appellant told, him that the .hog belonged to Campbell,. and that witness;..should; say nothing about its being in his possession. Witness went with appellant;.,driving the , hog along. the,. road, , until they reached appellant!s , .home where they; put , the hog in a small chicken house. On .cross-examination, this witness testified . . in a : ,manner from whichi . his: animus against the appellant might be inferred. It.appeared, however, that this was created in his mind after he had testified before the grand jury and disclosed to that body the facts to which he testified ; on the trial of the case. It is insisted that : Simons was an accomplice of the appellant, in the comiiqssion of the larceny, and that his testimony' WaS nof corrOborated. 'think the facts establish that 'relation- ta the appellant a's' to . the : :commisSion of the 'crinie. 'In Murphy v Stitt, 130 Ark:' 353, 197 S W 85, the . follaWing, definition . Of ."accemplice" was . adoi30....“An aCCOMplice in the fU . ll . And: . generally accepted legal signification of ;the wordHis one, who in any manner participates . ' in , the) criminality: 'of r/an act, whether 'he is considered in StriCt 'legal" proptiety"'as a principal in • the • *first or : second' degree oi:nierelY;as an accessory before or after fhe fact." Under 3181 of Crawford & Moses' DigeSt, a , conviction Cannot' lie had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to ; connect the defendant with the: commission: of- the . 'offense.' . The ... amen: lit, of' cor-. roborating evidence necessary, :however; is . :a. question for the jury., Kennedy v. .State,.115 Ark. .480; 171. S. W. 878.; If, therefore, : .therel is ..any substantial •evidence tending to . connect the defendant . with the 'cOmmission. of the .crime,. although it :may ;be, slight, it will be , sufficient
903 to: siipport the jury's: Verdict:' Townsend v: State, 148 Ark. '573, '231 S. 'IV: I. It was in evidence that the chicken hOuse, said by $imons „to be.,the place,,where the hog, was taken and confined, was.,in•a .condition :that .made it insecure, and the day,following, gip larcey the hog was , discovered in h rice field, the , loca.tion of which :with respect tO appel: lant's,home noi being,disclOsed by the , evidence.. It, was ffirther in evidence thatIon the night , of the larceny two men were , seen driving a hog'aiong the road in the direct* of;,appOant's . hoine. The witness was unable to diStinguish mOie' than the general , OpilineS 'of , the ,two then, but , st6ted, they approimated: the height of,•appel, farit and ghnon' s. This", corroborating eVidence, while not' altogether SatisfactOry and convincing, is sufficient under Our decisions tO' lyaii-rant the submission of the case , to :the jury as tO the SuffiCiency , of the evidence , to CorrebOrate the testimOny SiMons the' aecomPlice. The case must therefore, be affi'rined. I I • t i • s ,s o or • d I ered. ;i_
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.