Taliaferro v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 12 April 1883
• Citation: 77 Va. 411
• Parties: TALIAFERRO (NELLY) v. THE COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

77 Va. 411

TALIAFERRO (NELLY) v. THE COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 12, 1883

Error to judgment of corporation court of Lynchburg, rendered November 3d, 1882, overruling the motion of Nelly Taliaferro (a colored woman) to set aside the verdict of the jury finding her guilty of house-breaking, with intent to commit larceny, and fixing the term of her imprisonment in the state penitentiary at two years, and to grant her a new trial. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court, and indicated in the syllabus.

Thomas Whitehead, and L. S. Marye, for the appellant.

Attorney-General F. S. Blair, for the commonwealth.

OPINION

LEWIS P.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for burglary. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of house-breaking with intent to steal, and ascertained her punishment at two years' confinement in the penitentiary. A motion for a new trial was overruled by the court, and sentenced pronounced in accordance with the verdict. Thereupon, by writ of error, the case was brought to this court.

The question to be considered is, whether the facts proved, as certified in the record, warrant the conviction.

At the trial, it was proved that the day after the offence was committed, the goods specified in the indictment as having been stolen from the house in question were seen in a room of a neighboring house, which was occupied jointly by the accused and another woman, Louisa Poindexter, and that the following day they were sold by the accused, she saying that she had gotten them from Louisa Poindexter, and giving other and conflicting statements as to how she came by them. The goods consisted of two bed-quilts and a bolster, and when seen, the day after they were stolen, were spread on a bed in the room occupied by the accused and Louisa Poindexter. But it does not appear that the bed was occupied by the accused and it was proved that a negro man, the paramour of Louisa Poindexter, was in the habit of visiting the room and staying there all night. These are all the facts certified necessary to be noticed.

It is well settled that possession of goods recently stolen creates a presumption that the person found in possession of them is the thief. This has often been held in cases of simple larceny, and is laid down by all the text writers upon the subject of approved authority. But it has never been decided in this state that such possession is even prima facie evidence of guilt in cases of burglary and house-breaking. The question was discussed, but not decided in Walker's Case, 28 Gratt. 969. The contrary is laid down by Wharton, 2 Crim. Law, section 1605; Burrill Civ. Ev. 456; People v. Davis, 1 Park. Cr. Ca....