Daniel v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1880 |
| Citation | 65 Ga. 200 |
| Parties | Daniel. v. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Evidence. New trial. Before Judge Wright. Dougherty Superior Court. October Term, 1879. Reported in the opinion.
Lewis Arnheim; D. A. Vason, for plaintiff in error.
W. O. Flemming, solicitor general, by D. A. Russell, for the state.
There were two several indictments against the plaintiff in error in the superior court of Dougherty county for simple larceny, the specific crime being cattle stealing; he was found guilty in both cases, moved for a new trial in each, which was refused and he excepted.
The two cases were heard in this court together, and the judgment therein will be so pronounced. *One of the grounds in each case relied upon by the defendant was, that he offered two witnesses, viz: Maly Johnson and Minerva Jenkins to prove that they had heard Henry Dixon say that he had stolen the steers for which the defendant was indicted, and that he was sharp enough to get out of it, which testimony was rejected by the court, and thedefendant assigned that as error. The testimony in the record shows that the defendant, shortly after the loss of the property, had carried it to Albany and there sold it.
1. The rule is too well settled to be disturbed, that the possession of stolen property immediately after it is stolen, puts upon the possessor the burden of proving that his was not a guilty possession.
These witnesses were therefore offered to remove this legal presumption of the defendant's guilt, by showing that they had heard one Dixon say that he had stolen the steers. We are at a loss to see how, under any well defined or even loose principle of law, this testimony was admissible. To allow such hearsay as this to rebut and overcome so strong a legal presumption of guilt, would be about equivalent to holding that if the prisoner could get some one to say that he committed the crime for which the accused was indicted, and then offer witnesses to prove that they heard it said, then, in all such cases, it would be the duty of the jury to acquit. No court within our reading has so held, and this will not certainly be the first to establish such a precedent.
2. Another, and a separate ground, taken in one of these cases is, that the court refused to allow the magistrate presiding at the commitment trial to testify as to the statement made by the prisoner at that time. In preliminary trials the court shall always permit ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiley v. State
... ... He ... failed to carry this burden to the satisfaction of the jury ... "The rule is too well settled to be disturbed, that the ... possession of stolen property immediately after it is stolen ... puts upon the possessor the burden of proving that his is not ... a guilty possession." Daniel v. State, 65 Ga ... 3. In ... one portion of his charge, after having twice explained very ... favorably to the defendant the rule with reference to ... accounting for the possession of stolen goods, the trial ... judge instructed the jury that "the defendant is not ... ...
-
State v. Young
...58 Ala. 372; Sharp vs. State, 6 Tex.App. 650; Holt vs. State, 9 Tex. Ap. 571. See also United States vs. Munholland, 50 F. 417; Daniel vs. State, 65 Ga. 200; Brown State, 3 Tex. Ap. 623; Pick vs. State, 86 Tenn. 267 (6 S.W. 389); Rhea vs. State, 10 Yerg. 258; Corn vs. Chabbock, 1 Mass. 144;......
-
United States v. Mulholland
...in the lower court, and the ruling was sustained by the supreme court of the state. See, also, Snow v. State, 54 Ala. 138. In Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 200, the offense charged stealing cattle. The accused on his trial offered to prove by two witnesses that they had heard Henry Dixon say 'tha......
-
Moses v. Watson
...65 Ga. 197Moses. v. Watson.Supreme Court of the State of Georgia(February Term, 1880.) *Equity. Jurisdiction. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Crawford. Muscogee ... ...