Smith v. State

Decision Date24 March 1885
Citation17 Neb. 358,22 N.W. 780
PartiesSMITH v. STATE.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from Cass county.

Beeson & Sullivan, for plaintiff.

The Attorney General, for defendant.

COBB, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for the larceny of a gold watch and other articles of jewelry, of the value of $65. Having pleaded not guilty to the charge, he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years. He brings the cause to this court on error.

It appears from the evidence, as presented in the bill of exceptions, that the watch and jewelry were lost at Atlantic, in the state of Iowa, and found in the possession of the plaintiff in error, in Cass county, in this state. The testimony as to how the property came into the possession of the accused is as follows:

Maud Emery, being on the stand as a witness on the part of the state, and having testified that she was acquainted with the accused, was interrogated: (285) Did you have any conversation with him relative to the stealing of any property, jewelry, watches? Yes, sir. (287) You may state when it was and where. It was in my house, something over a month ago. (288) State what he said at that time. Told me he had some jewelry in his possession, stolen by a man named Henry from a woman in Iowa. He said Henry hid it in the barn, and he removed it to a better place. (289) Did he say anything further? No, sir. (290) Say anything about his having seen Henry put it there? Yes; he said he saw Henry put it there. He followed him in and removed it; put it in another place. He said he saw Henry hide the jewelry, and he removed it to a new place. (291) What was said at that time, if anything, about his keeping the jewelry? Well, he said they were slyer than he was if they got it again,––the man that stole it.

Alfie Hasson, also a witness on the part of the state, having testified that she was acquainted with the accused, her examination proceeded as follows: (318) Did you have any conversation with him relative to any jewelry? Yes, sir. (319) You may state when it was and where. It was at Miss Maud's. (320) When? About a month ago. (321) You may state what he said at that time. He said he took the jewelry from where it was hid, and showed it to me. (322) What did he show you? A watch and chain, and two rings. (323) What kind of a watch was it, silver or gold? Gold. (324) Lady's or gentleman's? Lady's. (325) What kind of rings did he show you? Both set rings. (326) What kind of a chain with the watch? Lady's gold chain. (327) Did you state as to what he said as to where he got them? Took them where they had been hid. Mr. Henry had hid them. (328) Tell you where that was that Henry hid them? Yes. (329) Where? Jones' livery stable. (330) Where is that? Fourth street. (331) In Plattsmouth, Cass county, Nebraska? Yes. (332) * * * (333) You may state whether anything was said to you about taking this jewelry and going to Omaha at that time; if so, what it was? He said, go to Omaha with them,––the jewelry. (334) Just state fully what he said about that. Did not have anything particular to say. Cannot remember.”

There is evidence that the watch and jewelry were found on the person of the accused when he was arrested.

In the case of Priest v. State, 10 Neb. 393, S. C. 6 N. W. REP. 468, this court held that “a confession is not sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti. There must be other evidence that a crime has actually been committed, the confession being used to connect the accused with the crime.” The law as thus stated is fully sustained by the authorities there cited, as well as by the other cases cited by counsel for the plaintiff in the brief in the case at bar, and is undoubtedly...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT