
    IRREGULARITY IN PROVING CORPUS DELICTI.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    Harry Kohn v. State of Ohio.
    Decided, April 15, 1911.
    
      Arson — Failure to Establish Corpus Delicti Before Incriminating. Evidence was Introduced — Procedure in Criminal Cases.
    
    1. In a prosecution for arson a judgment of guilty will not be reversed becaus.e of failure to establish the corpus delicti before evidence tending to incriminate the defendant was introduced, where -the burning of the property was not disputed and the sáme evidence which established criminal agency also bore upon the question of the guilt of the accused.
    2. The question of the competency of evidence will not be considered, where no exception was taken to its admissibility.
    
      Littleford, James, Frost & Foster, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Henry T. Hunt, contra.
    Jones,• J.; Smith, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.
   Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April term, 1910, of the common pleas court of the crime of arson.

The main point relied on for reversal of the judgment below is that evidence was allowed to be offered by the state of alleged suspicious and incriminating conduct of the defendant before the corpus delicti was established.

It is true, as a general rule, that the corpus delicti must be proven in a criminal case before any evidence is offered as to the guilt of the accused.

But this rule has its exceptions as all rules have, and we thinli this case furnishes one of them.

There is no question about the burning of the property. The same evidence which shows a criminal agency as to the fire also shows the guilt of the accused and in such case the evidence may be offered at the same time. State v. Davis, 48 Kan., 1; State v. Potter, 52 Vt., 33; Best on Evidence (Am. Ed., 1883), Section 442.

The burning being admitted, the second element in the crime of arson, that of criminal agency, remained to be proven. This was proven to the satisfaction of the jury by the same evidence which fastened the crime upon.Kohn — namely, his conduct and statements before and after the fire, which were not only suspicious and reprehensible, but wholly inconsistent with any theory other than his guilty knowledge of and criminal connection with the origin of the fire.

We think, therefore that the corpus delicti was properly proven and that the record shows no error prejudicial to plaintiff.

It is contended with force and ability that the testimony of witness Hazel ITelvey as to a conversation had with one Levison was inadmissible. No exception was taken to its admission and hence we do not feel called upon to determine its competency.

We find no error in the record and the judgment below is affirmed;  