Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 02 June 1910
• Citation: 167 Ala. 77,52 So. 730
• Parties: JACKSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 730

167 Ala. 77

JACKSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 2, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

Vernon Jackson was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Almon &amp Andrews, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN J.

The property involved in the offense charged was a shotgun alleged to have been, in November, 1906, shipped by express from Iron City, Tenn., to W. A. Porter at Russellville, Ala. The evidence tended to show that it was stolen, while at Sheffield, Ala., en route to destination. In February, 1908 the house of William Jackson, the prisoner's father, and their common abode, was searched, and a shotgun was found in a closet therein, which gun, the evidence tended to show, was the gun shipped as indicated. It was further open to the jury to find that the prisoner as well as his father was favorably situated, by reason of the place of employment, to have taken the gun from the custody of the express company. It further affirmatively appears from the evidence that when the gun was found, as stated, the prisoner said, and so without any inducement usually rendering a confession inadmissible, that the gun was his. The witness Shelton stated that the prisoner (on the occasion of the search and finding of the gun) said: "That is my gun;" that "I (he, the witness) says, 'Where did you get it?' and he did not answer." The explanation of his possession of the gun offered by the prisoner was that his father, William Jackson, bought the gun "some time before Christmas, 1906," from a party not identified, and gave it to him (the prisoner).

"It is the settled law of this state that the recent possession of stolen goods, imposes on the possessor the onus of explaining the possession; and, if he fails to make a reasonable explanation, raises a presumption of guilt, which will support a verdict of conviction. If there was evidence tending to connect the defendant with the larceny, the recent, unexplained possession of the goods, it may be, would raise the presumption that he had stolen them, rather than that he had received them knowing them to have been stolen. But where the evidence, though proving the larceny, does not connect him with its commission, tending to fix the guilt of it upon another, and he has the recent possession of the goods, if he makes no reasonable explanation of the possession, the same presumption should be applied, which would be applied if the possession had remained with the first taker. There is no unfairness in the presumption; it is reasonable." This quotation is taken from Martin's Case, 104 Ala. 71, 78, 16 So. 82. See, also, Boyd's Case, 150 Ala. 101, 43 So. 204.

The basis of the evidential (only) presumption stated is that the goods were "stolen." The evidence here tended to establish that fact. If they so found, then the inquiry was whether, from the...