Opinion
No. 32104.
April 6, 1936.
1. CRIMINAL LAW.
Testimony of accomplices is sufficient to sustain conviction of burglary.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Accused's guilt in burglary prosecution based on testimony of accomplices held for jury.
APPEAL from circuit court of Yalobusha county. HON. JOHN M. KUYKENDALL, Judge.
Cilman Woods, of Water Valley, for appellant.
The case on the face of the evidence as a whole shows that the verdict of the jury was such as to evidence prejudice on the part of the jury.
The only persons to testify that Duke, the defendant, was implicated were Logue and Ault, both accomplices, and both who had criminal records. These witnesses contradicted themselves in material points.
The character of the men and conflicting statements are such that the jury could not have believed either and the verdict was the result of prejudice.
W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Appellant's principal attack is made upon the credibility of the witnesses for the state. Upon this proposition, the state submits that it is the exclusive province of the jury to pass on the credibility of witnesses, and it is not for this court to say that witnesses are unworthy of belief.
Wells v. State, 112 Miss. 76, 72 So. 859; Simmons v. State, 109 Miss. 605, 68 So. 913.
While there may be slight discrepancies in the testimony of the accomplices on a few of the details, their testimony is substantially harmonious in its major aspects, and the state submits that it meets the requirements laid down in Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479, and Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696, 114 So. 816, respecting the testimony of accomplices, and this court ought to affirm this conviction.
John Duke was indicted and convicted of burglarizing the store of one Geeslin, and was sentenced to four years in the state penitentiary, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
He was jointly indicted with Jack Logue, Mrs. Jack Logue, Albert Ault, and Wm. Jennings, but was granted a severance and tried separately. The crime was established by the testimony of Jack Logue and Albert Ault, who differed in some details of the crime itself, but their testimony was direct and positive, and was corroborated by the finding of some of the goods at places where their testimony showed they were placed for sale.
It is assigned as error that the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the verdict of the jury was such as to evince prejudice on their part.
Of course the testimony of accomplices is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury under the laws of this state, and it was for the jury to say whether the testimony of the state witnesses was true or not. The jury accepted their testimony by the verdict; we find no error in so doing, and the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.