Dolvin v. Alabama Court Opinion

    l,
X [v{4,g 

^Jw ry oV/t 
^p-.r.t,

134 Ala. 39I SOUTHERN REPOT'TI)R, 2d SERIT]S

J,, of first-degree murder and he appealed. Dr. Richard Souviron. The defendant,
The Court of Appeals, Bowen, J., 391 So.2d Glenn Dolvin, was indicted and convicted
129, reversed. On petition for writ of for the first degree murder of Lovett. Th6-l
certiorari, the Supreme Court, Maddox, J., Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that I
held that evidence of defendant's presence conviction, fin{ing that the evidence was Iin victim's general neighborhood, when insufficient "to connect the defendant with t

;ff;lJ:":,1'"1':,lliL:;t",:,1.1J::::dff 
*u1i""ry,li".;^i,:[[;'?i?J

fendant's conviction for first-degree mur- \ourt of Crimirial Appeals, in its opinion,

/r/

Several o

called to
Nagy was
l,ovetts ar

1970, at 8

Mrs. Bett.r
gone to br

16, l9?0, r

help, let n,

Mrs. Third
a Volkswa
vett resrdr
her house
Third test
which cou'
Mrs. Thirri

Mr. Henrl
noise on y'

9:30 p. m.
window.
he noticed
knocked or
whether or

a shotgun

Miss Dehl',
gust 16, 19

and her m

nience stor
Garrett w,

and at aro
the store
this time tt'

a dark gr,
lights off.
from the,
During th,
and saw h

Street. 1

there a mr

shout. Tl
back alley
wag out o.'

ten gecotr,;

time the h

rett saw [r
the womar
irt thc nt,,r

Misu Garr'
driver of I !

of the Apy

t
I

:
I

der.

Decision of Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed and remanded.

On remand, Ala.Cr.App., 391 So.2d

139.

l. Homiclde e234(7)
In prosecution for first-degree murder,

circumstantial evidence alone may be suffi-
cient to prove the accused'g commission of
or participation in the killing.

2. Criminal tcw c=59(3)

If accused's presence at time and place

that crime was committed, in conjunction
with other facts and circumstances, tend to
connect him with the commission of the
crime, then the jury may find accused
guilty.

3. Homicide 6234(8)
Evidence of defendant's presence in

victim's general neighborhood, when viewed
in a light most favorable to prosecution,
was sufficient to sustain defendant's convic-
tion for first-degree murder.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean
Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for peti-
tioners.

William L. Chenault, III, and Travis W.
Hardwick, Decatur, for respondents.

MADDOX, Justice.

On August 16, 1970, Charles Ray Lovett
disappeared from his home in Decatur.
Skelctnnizcd re mains we re uncarthe<l in
Snnf<rrrl, I,'lorirlu on [)ccemhcr 6, 1C77.

Thcse re nruins we re sulrscr;ucntly rlctcr-
mined to be consistent with Lovett by com-
parisons made by a forensic odontologist,

set out the evidence presented by the State
to connect the defendant with the crime, as

follows:

The prosecution began its case by proving a()
motive for the murder. Morgan County
Circuit Clerk Cleo Teague took the stand
and testified that in March, 1970 Appellant
was indicted for grand larceny of Charles
Ray Lovett's automobile; l,ovett was list€d
on the back of the indictment as a witness
for the State and Lovett's address was also

shown on the indictment. Moreover, at the
time of Lovett's disappearance the grand
larceny charge against Appellant was still
pending.

The testimony of J. R. Garrett showed that v
Appellant was in the State of Alabama
during the months of July-August, 1970.

In early August Garrett observed Appellant
proceeding with a piece of paper in his hand

to Freemont Street where Lovett resided;

Appellant glanced up and down the street
as if trying to ascertain precisely where

Lovett lived, then turned and left.

fl.ickey Hames stated that on August 16, !
1970, the day of Lovett's disappearance,
Appellant came. to a service station and

asked for directions to Freemont Street.
Hames showed Appellant a city map.
Hames further stated that Freemont Street
and the service station were in the same

neighborhood.

Prior testimony of James Howell [,egg, who

was deceased at the time of the murder
trial, was also introduced. Legg stat€d that
he was at his scrvice station on August 16,

l{)70, tnrl thut he turw thc Appcllnnt thore
lrctwcen 4 6 p. m. Lcgg ncver wavcrcd in
his certainty that it was Appellant he had

secn that day.



v
DOLVIN v. STATE

Clte as, Na.Sup., t0l So.2d 133

Ala. 135

rlefendant,
rl convicted
,ovett. The
versed that
'irlence was
ndant with

vin v. State,
,r?9). The
its opinion,
'y the State
ire crime, as

)y proving a

Jan County
'r the stand
0 Appellant
of Charles

t was listed
rs a witness
rss was also
over, at the
' the grand
nt was still

,howed that
,f Alabama
,gust, 1970.

I Appellant
in his hand
'tt resided;
r the street
sely where
ft
August 16,
'rppearance,

tation and
,,rnt Street.
r,ity map.

rront Street
r the same

ILegg, who
the murder
stated that
August 16,
,llant there
wavercd in

l:rnt he had

k

Several of the victim's neighhors were The victim'e wife then took the gtand. She
called to the witness stand. Mr. Sherlon talked to her husband by telephone around
Nagy was the next-door neighbor of the 10:00 p. m. on August 16, 1970. That was
lovetts and last saw him on August 16, the last she iver"heard from the victim.
1970, at 8:30 p. m. After talking to her husband Mrs. Graves

Mrs. Betty Third stated that after she had (sic) went outside the Dairy Queen to take
gone to bed around 10:30 p. m. on Augusl out some trash. When she opened the door

16, l9?0, she heard someone shout, "help, she saw a STeen Volkswagen parked almost

help, let me go" and there was a loud noise. directly in front of the door. A man was in

Mrs. Third looked out the window and saw the driver's seat and a woman was on the

a volkswagen moving slowly past the Lo- passenger side' The woman stared at her

vett residence and a man walking around and was identified as Mr* sue Dolvin'

her house. On cross-examination Mrs. Mrs. Graves (sic) further testified that the

Third testified that she heard a loud noise victim had never had any dental work but

which could have been a car backfiring. that he had a dark stain on his bottom

Mrs. rhird *u. ,nru,iii";;il ;;;;. 
.' ' 

lXi'J;,Jl,li;.-ffXl"i.-:Ji,,i,lll.""f,fff 
t

Mr. Henry David Hardiman heard a loud extractions.
noise on August 16, 1970, sometime after
g:80 p. m. He woke up and looked out the Mr' Robert E' Hancock of the Alabama

wlnoow. Alrnougn ne oro noL see anyone, Department of Public safety testified that

becue grill had beenne noLrceo rnal nrs o"rr"*" *ili;;J';;; in his investigation of the victim's disap'
,. -,., 

^ , .. pearance he went to the Dolvins' residence
KnocKeo over, mr. narolman olo no[ Know
wneLner or no' Lne rouo nolse ne nearo was in Key west' Florida' outside he observed

a shotgun blast. an old green volkswagen with an applica'
tion for replacement tag stuck to the rear

Miss Debbie Garrett testified that on Au- window. A Florida search warrant wag
gust 16, 1970, she lived on Freemont Street obhined and a brown paper bag and map
and her mother worked at a nearby conve- were taken from the luggage compartment
nience store. On the night in question Miss of Mrs. Dolvin's car. The items were sent
Garrett was with her mother at the store off to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.
and at around 10:30 p. m. she went outside C.
the store to lock up the ice machine. At
this time Miss Garrett saw a woman driving Mr' Alison sims of the FBI stated that he

a dark green volkswagen with its head- tested the bag and map for blood stains'

lights off. Miss Garrett got a magazine Although he was able to detect human

from the store and sat in her mother's car. blood stains on both items' the particular

During this time she watched the woman blood type could not be determined'

and saw her make two trips to Freemont Mr. Robert Quackenbos stated that he man-

Street. The second time the woman sat aged the trailer park where the Dolvins

there a minute, then Miss Garrett heard a lived. In August, 1970, Quackenbos lived

shout. The woman then drove down the next door to the Dolvins. Although his

back alley at a fast speed. The automobile bedroom was located next to the road and

was out of Miss Garrett's sight for around he was being vtiry watchful because of van-

ten seconds, then she saw it again. This dalism problems, at no time did he hear the

time the headlights were on and Miss Gar- Dolvins go in their trailer during the week'

rett saw two additional men in the car with end of August 16, 1970. Moreover, the 1
the woman. One man was slumpe6 down Volkswagen was gone the entire weekend' '
in the seat an<l the other had his back to The Dolvins'daughter stayed at the Quack'

Miss Garrett. Miss Garrett irlentified the enbos' trailer during part of that weekend.

driver of the automobile as Sue Dolvin, wife Florida State Trooper Clarence Lee Simp-
of the Appellant. son was on duty in Ocala, Florida, in the

b



136 Ala. 391 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

early morning hours of August 18, 19?0'

Around t:00 a. m. Sue Dolvin came in the

Highway Patrol Station and signed a lost

tag form. Mrs. Dolvin had s.mudges on her

and her fingernails and clothes were dirty'
Shc appeared as if she had been camping in

the woods.

David Sandlin was the Sheriff of Morgan

County in August, 1970. He drove to Key

West, Floritla, after Appellant waived ex-

tradition in order to return Appellant to
Morgan County, Alabama. Sandlin noticed

that Appellant had a black eYe.

John Cardi, a construction worker in San-

ford, Florida, discovered some bones at a

construction site in December, 19??' Police

investigators were called to the scene'

Chad Barton, an investigator with the San-

ford, Florida, Sheriff's Department investi-

gated the skeletal remains discovered by

Cardi. A shotgun pellet and wadding were

found in the remains; sixteen pellets be-

lieved to be lead in content were also re-

moved from the chest cavitY.

Barton personally flew the skeletal remains

to Dr. Joseph H. Davis, the Chief Medical

Examiner in Miami, Florida.

Dr. Davis examined the remains and deter-

mined them to be those of a caucasian male

in his mid-twenties at the time of death'

It was Davis' opinion that the victim had

not died of suicide or natural or accidental

causes. Davis stated that he would classify

the victim as a probable homicide as a re-

sult of a gunshot wound.

The bones had been buried from 1-10 years'

Dr. Richard Souviron, a forensic odontolo-

gist, assisted Dr. Davis in examining the

leeth found along with the skeleton' Dr'

Souviron determined that the teeth were

those of a caucasian male between the ages

of twenty-five and thirty-five. The teeth

appeared to be perfect, with no cavities,

fiiiings or apparent orthodontal work' Also

noted was a dark stain along the gum line'

Souviron stated that a set of perfect teeth

w&8 very rare.

Souviron was given photographs of the vic-

tim and enlargements wcre made' Com-

paring the remains with the photograph

Souviron foun<l the formation and angle of
the lower jaw to be consistent with the

victim's. Souviron further found the upper
jaw to be consistent with the victim's'

In sum, based on fourteen points of compar'

ison, Souviron found nothing inconsistent

between the photographs and the remains

of the victim and it was his opinion that the

skeletal remains were indeed those of

Charles RaY Lovett'

From the foregoing summary of evidence

put on by the State there can be no ques'

tion but that sufficient evidence was pro-

duced to send the case to the jury' Firstil
Appellant elearly had a motive for killing 

I

Lovett in order to prevent him from testify' 
I

ing against him on a criminal charge' -)
Furthermore, before Lovett disappearedl
Appellant was seen glancing around Freem-- 

|

ont Street with a piece of paper in his hand./

More importantly, on the aftcrnoon of Lo-

vett's disappearance two eye witnesses

placed Appellant at a service station a mile

irom Lovett's home and Appellant specifi-

cally asked one of the attendants for di-

rections to Freemont Street'

Moreover, the victim's wife pinned down

Lovett's disappearance to between 10:00-

11:00 p. m. on August 16, 1970' At around

10:30 p. m. Mrs. Betty Third, a neighbor,

heard a voice crying, "Help, help, let me

go," then heard a loud noise' When she

looked out the window she saw an automo-

bile of the same make as Appellant's wife's

car moving slowly past the Lovett resi-

dence.

Another neighbor, Henry David Hardiman,

also heard a toua noise on the night in

question around 10:30 p. m. Neither Mrs'

'ihi.d no. Hardiman knew if the loud noise

was a gunshot.

Further evidence against Appellant was

provided by Miss Debbie Garrett, who on

ihe night of the disappearance observed

Appellant's wife driving around Freemont

Sirlet with no headlights on and then

speeding back down there where a cry for

hclp was heard, At this point Mrs' Dolvin

took off in a hurry rrnd when she pasacd by

Miss Garrett, there were two other men in

the car, one of whom was slumped over'

i
:

{
t'L
6
?

,i

{
i

I
t
{

Furth
of th,
wife,
parke,
Mrs. (

Dolvir,
unabi,

Later
found
Dolvir,

When
seen I

lant h:

as th,
woods

tll
rectly
alone
cused'r
killins
presen

t2l
rectly
542 (!\
proposi

person

not su

the cor

omittt,
at the
in conl
stancr'.
the cr,,

may fi
the cor

A
of tt
abo,.

offer
char'
geth.
crim
tion
suffi,
with
nish
8CC0r

This
Cir

enOuJ



-_
ion and angle of
ristent with the
found the upper
th the victim's.

,oints of compar-
,ng inconsistent
rnd the remains
opinion that the

{deed those of

rary of evidence
can be no ques-

idence was pro-
the jury. First,
rotive for kitling
him from testify-
rnal charge.

ett disappeared
,g around Freem-
,'aper in his hand.

afternoon of Lo-
) eye witnesses
ice station a mile
\ppellant specifi-
t.tendants for di-
,:t,

ife pinned down
, between 10:00-
1970. At around

'hird, a neighbor,
,rlp, help, let me
roise. When she
.i saw an automo-
\ppellant's wife's
the Lovett resi-

[)avid Hardiman,
on the night in
m Neither Mrs.
if the loud noise

t Appellant was
Garrett, who on

rrrance observed
around Freemont
rts on and then

" where a cry for
lxrint Mrs. Dolvin
lrr:n she passcd by
two other men in
rts slumped over.

DOLVIN v. STATE
Clte as, Alr.Sup.,3el So.2d 133

Further evidence of the joint participation most heinous crime, provided the jury
of the Dolvins was provided by the victim's believes beyond a reasonable doubt that
wife, who observed Sue Dolvin and a man the accused is guilty. Lowe v. State, 90
parked in front of the Dairy Queen where Fla. 255, 105 So. 829 (19%). Circumstan-]
Mrs. Graves (sic) worked. Although Mrs. tial evidence is said to be the inference of 

I
Dolvin stared at her, Mrs. Graves (sic) was a fact in issue which follows as a natural 

I
unable to see the man's face clearly. consequence according to reason and com- [
Later items stained with human blood were mon experience from known collateral I
found in the automobile owned by Mrs. facts' Lowe, supra'

Dolvin. White v. State,N4 Ala. 265, 272,314 So.Zal

When Appellant and his wife were later 857, cert. denied,4z8 U.S.951,96 S.Ct. SmAl

seen by la* enforcement officials, Appel- 46 L'Ed'zd 288 (1975)'

lant had a black eye and Mrs. Dolvin looked
as though she had gotten dirty in the
woods.

tll The Court of Criminal Appeals cor-
rectly held that circumstantial evidence
alone may be sufficient to prove the ac-

cused's commission of or participation in the
killing, but concluded that the evidence
presented by the State was insufficient.

12) The Court of Criminal Appeals cor-
rectly cited Kimmons v. State, 343 So.2d

542 (Ala.Cr.App.19?7), as standing for the
proposition that "the mere presence of a

person at the time and place of a crime is

not sufficient to justify his conviction for
the commission of the crime." That court
omitted, however, to state that if presence

at the time and place a crime is committed,
in coniunction with othgfl-agE-and cllggm:.
stanies.-tenil to connect the accused with
the commission of the crime, then the jury
may find the accused guilty. ln Kimmons,
the court said:

A more proper and correct statement
of the rule is that the fact that at or
about the time of the commission of the
offense with which the accused is

charged, he and the accomplice were to-
gether, in or near the place where the
crime was committed, may, in conjunc-
tion with other facts and circumstances,
sufficiently tend to connect the accused

with the commission of the crime to fur-
nish the necessary corroboration of the
accomplice.

This Court has staterl the rule as follows:
Circumslantial evi<lence alone is

enough to support a guilty verdict of the

Ala. 137

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evi-
dence, we think the Court of Criminal Ap-
peals did not correctly apply the test set out
in Cumbo v. State,368 So.zd 8?1, 8?4 (Ala.
Cr.App.1978), although we note that the
court cited that case. ln Cumbo, the court
said:

In reviewing a conviction based on cir-
cumstantial evidence, this court must
view that evidence in the light most fa-
vorable to the prosecution. The test to
be applied is whether the jury might rea-
sonably find that the evidence excluded
every reasonable hypothesis except that
of guilt; not whether such evidence ex-
cludes every reasonable hypothesis but
guilt, but whether a jury might reason-
ably so conclude. United States v. Black,
497 F.2d 1039 (sth Cir. 1974); United
States v. McGlamory, Ul F.kJ 130 (sth

Cir. 19?1); Clark v. Unitcd Slates, 293

F.zd 445 (5th Cir, 1961).

(W)e must keep in mind that the test to
be applied is not simply whether in the
opinion of the trial judge or the appellate
court the evidence fails to exclude every
reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt;
but rather whether the jury might sol
conclude. Harper v. ILnited States, 405 \
F.zd 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Eoberts v. Unit-
ed States,416 F.zd 1216 (5th Cir. 1969)'

The procedure for appellatc review of the
sufficiency of the evidence has been aptly
set out in Odom v. United States, 877

tr'.zd 853, 855 (5th Cir. 1967):

Our obligation, therefore, is to exam-
ine the record to determine whether
there is any theory of the evidence
from which lhe jury might have ex-



138 Ala.

cluded every hypothesis except guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Rua v.

llnitcd States, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.zd

140; Riggs v. United States, 5 Cir.'
1960, 280 F.2d 949. In Judge Thorn-
berry's wortls, ' t ' the standard uti-
lized by this Court is not whether in

our opinion the evidence and all reason-

able inferences therefrom failed to ex-

clude every hypothesis other than guilt,
but rather whether there was evidence

from which the jury might reasonably

so conclude. Williamson v. United
Sfates, 5th Cir., 1966, 365 F.kl 12, L4.

(Emphasis supplied)'

The sanctity of the jury function de-

mands that this court never substitute
its decision for that of the jury. Our
obligation is to examine the welter of
evidence to determine if there exists

any reasonable theory from which the
jury might have concluded that the de-

fendant was guiltY of the crime
charged. McGlamorY,44l F.2d at 135

and 136.

See also Blair v. State, 18 Ala'App. 615'

93 So. 45 (1522). Whether circumstantial
evidence tending to connect the defend-

ant with the crime excludes, to a moral

certainty, every other reasonable hypoth-

esis than that of the defendant's guilt is a

question for the jury and not the court'

Cannon v. State, 1? Ala.APP. 82, 81 So'

860 (1919); see also Evans v. State, 39

Ala.App. 404, 408, 103 So.2d 40, cert. de-

nied, 26? Ala. 695, 103 So.2d '14 (1958).

Circumstantial evidence may afford
satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti in

a murder prosecution, and, if facts are

presented from which the jury may rea-

sonably infer that the crime has been

committed, the question must be sub-

mitted to the jury. Hopson v. State,352
So.2d 500, 502 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed,
352 So.2rl 506 (Ala.19?6). However, cir-

lAumstantial evidence justifies a convic-

I tion only when it is inconsistent with any

L+casonablc theory of innoccncc.

The humnne provisions of the law arc,

that a prisoncr, charged with a fclony,

should not be convicted on circumstantial

evidence, unless it shows by a full meas-

39I SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

ure of proof that the defendant is guilty.

Such proof is always insufficient, unless

it excludes, to a moral certainty, every

other reasonable hypothesis, but that of
the guilt of the accused' No matter how

strong the circumstances, if they can be

reconciled with the theory that eome oth-

er person may have done the act, then the

defenclant is not shown to be guilty' by

that full measure of proof which the law

requires. Ex parte Acree, B Ala. ZJ4

(18?e).

Guilt is not established by circumstantial

evidence unless the facts relied on are

such that it is the only conclusion fairly
to be drawn from them. FuquaY v.

State,22 Ala.App. 213,ll4 So. 892 (192?).

If all the material circumstances in evi-

dence point to guilt and exclude any rea-

sonable hypothesis except that of guilt a

conviction is warranted. Pruett v. State,

33 Ala.App. 491, 495, 35 So.kl 115 (1948)'

We have examined the facts presented by

the State, as outlined in the opinion of the

Court of Criminal Appeals, and we have

compared those facts with the wife's case.

Sue Dolvin v. State,391 5o.2(666 lAla' I
Cr.App.19?9) aff'd 391 So.2d 677 (Alu:l
1980).

The Court of Criminal Appeals justifies

its holding that the evidence was insuffi'
cient by stating:

Here the State onlY Proved that the

defendant was in the victim's general

neighborhood, that he defendant sought

directions to the street on which the vic-

tim resided, and that the defendant had a

possible motive for wanting to kill the

victim. The defendant was never con-i
nected in any way with his wife and 

I

there was absolutely no evidence of any r,

conspiracy between the defendant and his 
I

wife to kill the victim. The record die-N
closes the clear and obvious absence of

any circumstanccs from which the crimi-

nal agency of the defendant could be

reasonably inferred and which would ex-

clude any reasonable inference consistent

with his innocence.

I
lr

I

With th,
wife was 1r

at a point
proximate<'
the crime
fact that sl
in Florida
there, the ,

from the r

cases are
Criminal .A

was suffici
insufficienr

t3l We
dence prodr
accused u,i

vinced that
most favorr
ficient to ;r

clude that :

sonable hy1

standard s

So.2d 871, I

No persr
on circum:.
dence, unk,
ble doubt 

'
hand, if th.
then a jurl

The Cou

tion of whr
justify the
of the jury
well v. St,
(1939), the '

The cr,

which m

evidenct,.
ence ded
existencr.
question
the evid.
ference t
Ala. M, i
2?t0 Ala. r
191 Ala.
ll5 Ala.

Upon cor,

the opinior
peals, and ,

ples to tha'



1?

,.indant is guilty.
ufficient, unless
eertainty, every
'sis, but that of
No matter how

, if they can be
y that some oth-
the act, then the
to he guilty, by
f which the law
ee, 63 Ala. 234

y circumstantial
ts relied on are
rxrnclusion fairly
nr. Fuquay v.

t4 So.892 Osn).
mstances in evi-
exelude any rea-
,t that of guilt a

Pruett v. State,
So.2d 115 (1948).

.'ts presented by
re opinion of the
s, and we have
the wife's case.

So.2d 666 (Ala.
So.Zt 6?7 (Ala.

,\ppeals justifies
nce was insuffi-

proved that the
victim's general
cfendant sought
n which the vic-
dcfendant had a
rting to kill the
was never con-
h his wife and
cvidence of any

',rfendant and his
The record dis-

,'ious absence of
which the crimi-
,nrlant could be

which would ex-
,rence consistent

I)OLVIN v. STATE
Clte as, Ala.Cr.App., 391 So.2d 130

With the exception of the fact that the decision of the jury that the circumstantial
wife was placed in the vicinity of the crime evidence was sufficient to juatify a convic-
at a point in time which more closely ap tion should not have been overturned by the
proximated the time of the commission of Court of Criminal Appeals in this case. The
the crime than wa's her husband, and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is,
fact that she was seen in the trooper station therefore, due to be reverced and the cause
in Florida and her husband was not seen remanded to that court.
therc, the infcrences which could be <lrawn
from the evirlence by the jury in the two REVERSED AND REMANDED'

cases are the samc. Yet, the Court of
Criminal Appeals found that the evidence TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER'
was sufficient in the Sue Dolvin case, but JONES, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY,
insufficient in this case. JJ., concur.

r [3] We need not list again all the evi-
( dence produced by the State to connect the
\accused with the crime, but we are con-'vinced 

that the evitlence, viewed "in a light
most favorable to the prosecution," was suf-
ficient to allow the jury to reasonably con-

\ clude that the evidence excluded every rea-
'sonable hypothesis except that of guilt, the
standard stated in Cumbo v. State, 368

r So.2d 871, 874 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).

No person should be convicted, whether
on circumstantial evidence or direct evi-
dence, unless it is shown beyond a reasona-
ble doubt that he is guilty; on the other
hand, if the State meets its burden of proof,
then a jury may find the defendant guilty.

The Court has said that the determina-
tion of whether the evidence is sufficient to
justify the conviction is within the province
of the jury as the finder of fact. ln McDo-
well v. State, %38 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183
(1939), the Court opined:

The corpus delicti is a fact, proof of
which may be made by circumstantial
evidence. If there is a reasonable infer-
ence deducible from the evidence of its
existence, the court must submit the
question of the sufficiency and weight of
the evidence tending to support that in-
ference to the jury. Martin v. State,fl?S
Ala. 64, 28 So. 921 supra; Lewis v. State,
220 Ala. 461,1?5 So. 802; Wilson v. State,
191 Ala. 7, 67 So. 1010; Neu '!l v. .Sdate,

115 Ala. 54,22 So. 572.

Upon consideration of the facts rot out in
the opinion of the Court of Criminal Ap-
peals, and applying the comect legal princi-
ples to that evidence, we conclude that the

Ala. 139

BLOODWORTH and ALMON, JJ., not
sitting.

Glenn DOLVIN

v.

STATE.

8 Div. 235.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 28, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1980.

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.

After Remandment

BOWEN, Judge.

This case is affirmed on authority of the
Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Dol-
vin v. State,391 So.2d 133.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

I

\
j