## Facts

- The complaining witness displayed two silver dollars in his open hand to Amos Thompson.
- The witness testified Thompson struck the witness’s hand while the coins were exposed.
- The witness could not say with certainty whether Thompson took the coins from his hand or whether the blow knocked them from his hand.
- The coins were lost to the witness immediately after the striking incident.
- The State presented evidence tending to connect Thompson to the loss of the coins; Thompson presented conflicting evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether larceny from the person requires direct testimony that the defendant physically seized the property from the victim’s hand, where the witness is uncertain whether the property was taken or merely knocked away.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to submit the charge of larceny from the person to the jury and to support the guilty verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction for larceny from the person.
- The court held the evidence, though uncertain on the mechanics of the loss, was sufficient for the jury to decide whether a taking from the person occurred.
- The court treated the striking of the victim’s hand holding money, followed by the immediate loss of the money, as circumstances permitting an inference of a taking.

## Legal Principles

- Direct, unequivocal eyewitness testimony of a physical seizure is not required to prove a taking from the person; circumstantial evidence may permit the jury to infer caption and asportation.
- When the State’s evidence, if credited, tends to establish the elements of the charged offense, conflicts in testimony and uncertainty in details present jury questions rather than grounds for removing the case from the jury.
- Appellate review of a jury verdict focuses on legal sufficiency, not whether the evidence is free from doubt; a verdict may stand where the record contains evidence connecting the accused to the offense.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Thompson’s conviction, concluding that the combination of Thompson striking the victim’s hand while the victim held money and the immediate disappearance of the coins provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find larceny from the person despite the witness’s uncertainty about whether the coins were grabbed or dislodged.


Thompson v. State, 10 So. 520 (Ala. 1891)