Farley v. The State

• Decision Date: 13 March 1891
• Docket Number: 15,990
• Citation: 26 N.E. 898,127 Ind. 419
• Parties: Farley v. The State
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

26 N.E. 898

127 Ind. 419

Farley v. The State

No. 15,990

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 13, 1891

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the appellant's motion for a new trial.

D. W Patty and W. R. Fertig, for appellant.

A. G Smith, Attorney General, S.D. Stuart, Prosecuting Attorney and J. F. Neal, for the State.

OPINION

Olds, C. J.

This is a prosecution against the appellant by affidavit and information charging him with the crime of burglary.

There was a trial, resulting in a verdict of guilty, and the sentence of the appellant to five years' imprisonment. Various questions are properly presented by the record.

The first alleged error complained of and discussed is that the court permitted the State to prove, over the objection of the appellant, the value of the goods taken from the building.

The affidavit and information properly charged the breaking and entering of a storehouse with intent to steal, take and carry away divers goods, etc., though it charged no value of the goods. There is no available error in the admission of this testimony. It was necessary to show that the breaking and entering was done with intent to commit the particular felony charged, and it was proper to prove that the larceny was actually committed. While not necessary to prove the value of the goods stolen, yet it was not error to admit proof of their value.

The appellant asked the court to give certain instructions, which were refused and exceptions reserved.

The sixth instruction asked and refused is as follows:

"Sixth. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and this presumption prevails until the close of the trial, and you should weigh the evidence in the light of this presumption, and it should be your endeavor to reconcile all the evidence with this presumption of innocence, if you can."

The court gave general instructions to the effect that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but no instruction was given embracing the principle stated in the sixth instruction asked, to the effect that the presumption of innocence prevails throughout the trial, and that it was the duty of the jury to reconcile the evidence upon the theory of the defendant's innocence, if they could do so.

It is a well settled principle in criminal law that the defendant enters upon...