Byars v. State

1. The indictment charged that the accused, Henry Byars, did “make, manufacture, and distill a quantity of distilled aleo-' holic and intoxicating liquors, spirits and alcohols, a portion of which was alcoholic, and which was the product of distillation.” He was convicted. The conviction depended upon both his full and voluntary confession and upon circumstances tending to establish the corpus delicti. “ ‘The confession being direct evidence, the conviction did not depend exclusively upon circumstantial evidence; and therefore, in the absence of an appropriate request, it was not erroneous…