Dobson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1895 |
| Parties | DOBSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The effect to be given to the fact of possession recently after the larceny of personal property is a question of fact, solely for the jury to determine, when considered in connection with all the other facts and circumstances proved on the trial. Robb v. State, 53 N. W. 134, 35 Neb. 285, followed.
Error to district court, Cherry county; Kinkaid, Judge.
Alexander Dobson was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.Reese, Gilkeson, Comstock & Reese and W. H. Westover, for plaintiff in error.
A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of larceny in the district court of Cherry county, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years in the penitentiary, etc. The property stolen consisted of two steers, claimed to have been taken from the open prairie, and shipped to South Omaha, and there sold by an agent of the plaintiff in error, under the direction of the party last indicated.
On its own motion, the court gave the following instruction, to which the plaintiff in error duly excepted: “(4) The jury are instructed by the court, possession of the stolen property recently after the same had been stolen, unexplained by the circumstance attendant thereon or otherwise, constitutes prima facie evidence of the guilt of the party so found in the possession thereof.” In Robb v. State, 35 Neb. 285, 53 N. W. 134, it was said: “The effect to be given to the fact of possession is solely for the jury to determine, when considered in connection with all the other facts and circumstances proven on the trial;” citing Thompson v. People, 4 Neb. 529;Thompson v. State, 6 Neb. 102;Grentzinger v. State, 31 Neb. 460, 48 N. W. 148; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 1894. It is, perhaps, true that, in the case just cited, there was not a direct disapproval of the use of the words “prima facie” in the connection in which they occur in the above copied instruction, and yet, impliedly, there was such disapproval in the language quoted. If the effect to be given the fact of possession was solely for the jury, it was improper for the court to instruct that such evidence should be deemed prima facie sufficient for any purpose. Whether it was prima facie or conclusive was solely for the jury to determine, unaided by any suggestions of the court upon that proposition of fact. For the error pointed out, the judgment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Sorensen
... ... heretofore indicated, walked into the shaft, with the results ... indicated. The complaint states facts sufficient to state a ... cause of action entitling plaintiff to relief at common law, ... and he therefore need not rely upon the provisions of the ... Workmen's ... burden of proof is shifted to the accused, which, if not ... sustained by him, requires the verdict to be cast against ... him. Dobson v. State , 46 Neb. 250, 64 N.W ... 956; Williams v. State , 60 Neb. 526, 83 ... N.W. 681; Van Straaten v. People , 26 Colo ... 184, 56 ... ...
-
State v. Barretta
... ... direction, [47 Utah 490] may tend to convey a meaning to the ... jury that when such enumerated particulars are shown the ... burden of proof is shifted to the accused, which, if not ... sustained by him, requires the verdict to be cast against ... him. Dobson v. State, 46 Neb. 250, 64 N.W ... 956; Williams v. State, 60 Neb. 526, 83 ... N.W. 681; Van Straaten v. People, 26 Colo ... 184, 56 P. 905; McCoy v. State, 44 Tex ... 616; State v. Bliss, 27 Wash. 463, 68 P ... 87; State v. Sasseen, 75 Mo.App. 197; ... State v. Lax, 71 N.J.L. 386, 59 A ... ...
-
Metz v. State
...in connection with all the other facts and circumstances disclosed on the trial. Robb v. State, 35 Neb. 285, 53 N. W. 134;Dobson v. State, 46 Neb. 250, 64 N. W. 956. In Robb v. State, supra, the writer used this unfortunate expression, which is now withdrawn: “It is only where the possessio......
-
Metz v. State
...objectionable of the two. Nevertheless, the instruction in the Whitman case is contrary to the rule announced in Robb v. State, and Dobson v. State, supra, and so far as the decision in Whitman v. State conflicts with the two cases mentioned it is overruled. It was error to give the sixth i......