Haney v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1946 |
| Docket Number | 36030. |
| Citation | 199 Miss. 568,24 So.2d 778 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HANEY v. STATE. |
Earle L. Wingo and D. W. Conner, both of Hattiesburg, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
To sustain the charge of grand larceny against the appellant Houston Haney, for the alleged stealing of the $440 in question, the State was able to prove without dispute that he was in possession of a $20 bill which the chief prosecuting witness, Roberta Jefferson, positively identified as having been among the 21 of such bills and 2 ten dollar bills that were stolen from her. This was sufficient proof to make out a case for the consideration of the jury, in view of the presumption of guilt which arises from the possession of recently stolen property, provided (1) that the proof is sufficient to establish that the money was in fact stolen; and (2) that the accused failed to give a reasonable explanation of his possession of such recently stolen property.
An examination of the evidence for the State clearly reveals circumstantially, that the purse in which this money was contained had either been removed from the bosom of Roberta Jefferson while she was asleep and riding in an automobile between the accused and one Ollie Morgan, or had become unfastened from the clothing of Roberta and was picked up by the accused under such circumstances as would justify a jury in believing that he had come into the possession thereof stealthily.
There is nothing in the evidence that would warrant the belief that either the said Ollie Morgan or any of the occupants of the rear seat of the automobile had first gained possession of the money, since it is not claimed by the accused that he received it from either of them. In fact, it is the theory of the defense that on the afternoon of the preceding day that this $20 bill may have been delivered to the wife of the accused by Roberta Jefferson in payment of her rent, or by a soldier whom the defendant claims purchased some beer for Roberta during the previous evening with a $20 bill.
According to the testimony of Roberta Jefferson, the $20 bill in controversy was given to her by her husband while he was working for the railroad, and immediately prior to his being inducted into the military service, that her husband was killed in Germany about two months before the alleged larceny took place, and that she had placed his initials 'C. H. J.' on this 'souvenir' $20 bill, which she had in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barry
...denomination as that taken, see State v. Huff, 56 Idaho 652, 57 P.2d 1080; People v. Filipak, 322 Ill. 546, 153 N. E. 673; Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 24 So.2d 778 and State v. Crowder, 114 Utah 202, 197 P.2d The bank teller testified that he gave the victim twenty thousand dollars in $1......
-
Hobbs v. State
...v. State, 278 So.2d 408, 409-10 (Miss.1973); Coggins v. State, 234 Miss. 369, 373, 106 So.2d 388, 389 (1958); Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 574-76, 24 So.2d 778, 778-79 (1946); Ray v. State, 864 So.2d 1031, 1033 (¶¶ 3-5) (Miss Ct.App.2004); Miles v. State, 864 So.2d 963, 966(¶ 12) (Miss.Ct......
-
Engbrecht v. State, 46929
...the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt of larceny. Lott v. State, 204 Miss. 610, 37 So.2d 782; Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 24 So.2d 778; Moody v. State, 181 Miss. 277, 179 So. 335; Huddleston v. State, 220 Miss. 292, 70 So.2d 621; Fletcher v. State, 168 Miss. 3......
-
Hoke v. State
...the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt of larceny. Lott v. State, 204 Miss. 610, 37 So.2d 782; Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 24 So.2d 778; Moody v. State, 181 Miss. 277, 179 So. 335; Huddleston v. State, 220 Miss. 292, 70 So.2d 621; Fletcher v. State, 168 Miss. 3......