Dennis v. State
| Decision Date | 12 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 163 |
| Citation | 275 S.W. 739,169 Ark. 505 |
| Parties | DENNIS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; W. A. Dickson, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
H W. Applegate, Attorney General, and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee.
Walter Dennis prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for the crime of grand larceny.
The first assignment of error is that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict.
According to the testimony of the witnesses for the State, the storehouse of Elmer Carter at Durham, Washington County Arkansas, was broken into in the night-time somewhere near the 16th day of July, 1924, and between sixty and seventy-five dollars' worth of tobacco and a sack of sugar were taken therefrom. In a day or two afterwards, Carter received information that his tobacco was in a storehouse at Tahlequah, Oklahoma. He immediately went there and identified a quantity of tobacco in the storehouse of C. C. Estepp as being the tobacco which had been stolen from his store. Carter had been in partnership with his brother-in-law under the firm name of Carter & Anderson. He bought his brother-in-law's interest in the store and continued to run it in the name of Carter & Anderson. The tobacco in question was shipped to him in the name of "Carter & Anderson, Durham, Ark.," and these words were marked on the tobacco boxes. The tobacco boxes found in the store of C. C. Estepp were plainly marked with the words, "& Anderson, Durham, Ark.," and the word "Carter" had been partially rubbed off or scratched out. C. C. Estepp bought the tobacco from W. D. Dennis, and gave him a check for $ 29.91 in payment of it. This was something like one-half of the invoiced value of the tobacco. A short time after Estepp bought the tobacco, he told the chief of police of Tahlequah about having purchased it and the price he paid for it. The chief of police examined the tobacco box, and, when he found that the word "Carter" had been marked or scratched off, he asked Estepp for and obtained this piece of wood. The chief of police wrote to the sheriff of Washington County to find out if a store had been burglarized there, and, after he found out that it had been, he turned over this piece of plank or wood to the sheriff of Washington County, Ark. He also turned over to him the check which Estepp had given the defendant in payment of the tobacco, and this check bore the indorsement, "W. D. Dennis." This check was given the chief of police by Estepp.
Another witness testified that he had examined the check in question and recognized the indorsement as the handwriting of W. D. Dennis.
The defendant relied upon the defense of an alibi, and introduced evidence tending to establish it.
The evidence for the State, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to warrant it in returning a verdict of guilty. Possession of property recently stolen justifies the inference that the possession is a guilty possession, and may be of controlling weight, unless explained by circumstances or accounted for in some way consistent with innocence. We have repeatedly held that the recent possession of stolen property by the defendant unexplained, when taken in connection with other circumstances similar to those proved in this case, is sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. Indeed, the recent possession of stolen property by the accused, unexplained, warrants the jury in returning a verdict of guilty. McDonald v. State, 165 Ark. 411, 264 S.W. 961, and cases cited.
The third assignment of error is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. State
...200 Ark. 1189, 141 S.W.2d 845; Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933, 132 S.W.2d 190; Riley v. State, 184 Ark. 227, 42 S.W.2d 15; Dennis v. State, 169 Ark. 505, 275 S.W. 739; McDonald v. State, 165 Ark. 411, 264 S.W. 961; Wiley v. State, 92 Ark. 586, 124 S.W. That evidence of offenses or acts simi......
-
Dearen v. State
...131 Ark. 312, 198 S. W. 877; Cranford v. State, 130 Ark. 101, 197 S. W. 19; Stroud v. State, 167 Ark. 502, 268 S. W. 850; Dennis v. State, 169 Ark. 505, 275 S. W. 739. Appellant contends, however, that this was an original claim and inadmissible in evidence in any other court except the cou......
-
Riley v. State
... ... reading as follows: "You are told that you cannot ... convict upon proof, if any, that defendant was in possession ... of recently stolen property alone." No error was ... committed in refusing to give this instruction ... Yelvington v. State, 169 Ark. 359, 275 S.W ... 701; Dennis v. State, 169 Ark. 505, 275 ... S.W. 739. It was held in both of these cases that the ... possession of property recently stolen justifies the ... inference that the possession is a guilty one, and may be of ... controlling weight unless explained by circumstances or ... accounted for in some ... ...
-
Lollar v. State
... ... circumstances ... is sufficient to warrant a verdict of ... guilty. Indeed, the recent possession of stolen property by ... the accused, unexplained, warrants the jury in returning a ... verdict of guilty. McDonald v. State, 165 Ark. 411, ... 264 S.W. 961, and cases cited." Dennis v ... State, 169 Ark. 505, 275 S.W. 739 ... The ... trial court did not err in refusing appellant's request ... for a directed verdict at the close of the State's [215 ... Ark. 860] testimony. We said in the recent case of ... McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936, 154 S.W.2d ... ...