Branson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 08 December 1891
• Parties: Branson v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

17 S.W. 1019

92 Ky. 330

Branson v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 8, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Harlan county.

"To be officially reported."

Indictment for breaking into a storehouse and stealing goods therefrom. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Holt C.J.

The appellant, William Branson, was jointly indicted with his father, Hezekiah Branson, and his brother-in-law, George Noe for breaking into a store-house and stealing goods therefrom. Upon a separate trial he was convicted, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. No brief is on file for him, but the grounds for a new trial show that he claims the verdict is contrary to the evidence; that incompetent testimony was admitted against him; and the jury not only not fully, but improperly, instructed. An examination of the testimony shows that a reversal should not be had upon the first ground. Some of the stolen property was found in his possession. It is true there is some conflicting evidence as to its identity; but the jury were the judges of the weight to be given to it pro et con, and their finding as to the guilt of the accused, unless altogether unsupported by the evidence, cannot be disturbed. If, however, errors of law were committed materially prejudicial to the rights of the accused, then he is entitled to another trial. Unquestionably the jury were fully and properly instructed as to the law of the case. They were told that before they could convict him they must believe from the evidence, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that he, either alone or with his co-defendants, or one of them, feloniously broke into the store-house with the intent to steal, and did take therefrom the property named in the indictment, or some of it, and carry it away, with the intention of depriving the owner of it. The accused was given the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The jury were told the law presumed his innocence, and it was their duty to reconcile all the circumstances proven with this presumption, if they could reasonably do so.

The single question was whether the accused, either singly or with his co-defendants, or either of them, did the breaking and stealing; and this question was, by proper instructions containing all the safeguards to which he was entitled submitted to the jury. It is certain from the evidence that the store-house was broken into and all the property stolen at one time. The jury have by their verdict in effect found that the accused subsequently had some of it in his possession. It appears from the testimony that his father also had a portion of it, and it is shown beyond question that this is also true as to his brother-in-law. The property was found in their possession not long after the commission of the offense. The evidence by which the two Bransons attempted to dispute the identity of that found in their possession is contradictory, and not of a satisfactory character, while no attempt was made to do so as to that in Noe's possession, or to show how he came by it, and it is clearly proven that it was a part of...