Johnson v. State

Citation148 Ind. 522,47 N.E. 926
PartiesJOHNSON v. STATE.
Decision Date13 October 1897
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

148 Ind. 522
47 N.E. 926

JOHNSON
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 13, 1897.


Appeal from criminal court, Marion county; J. F. McCray, Judge.

David Johnson was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.


John O. Spahr. for appellant. Wm. O. Ketcham, Atty. Gen., and Merrill Moores, for the State.

McCABE, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of petit larceny, on an indictment charging both larceny and burglary, and sentenced to pay a fine of $10, and imprisonment in the state prison for three years, disfranchisement, and incapacity for holding any office of trust or profit for three years. The action of the trial court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial is assigned as the only error complained of. The points made under the motion for a new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, alleged errors in the admission of evidence, and irregularity as to the jury. The proof showed that several dwelling houses in the city of Indianapolis, during the Christmas week of 1896, had been entered by unknown persons in the nighttime, and that various articles of personal property had been taken and carried away from such houses, among which was a watch and chain charged in the indictment to have been stolen.

The first point made is that the evidence does not sufficiently identify the watch and chain as that belonging to Daniel C. Hitt, as alleged in the indictment, but we think that the evidence was amply sufficient to establish the identity of the stolen property. Mr. Hitt testified substantially that the watch found in the defendant's exclusive possession was exactly like his watch, and, as to the chain on it, he testified that: “The chain I would identify positively as mine.” This, we think, was sufficient, amid all the other surrounding circumstances in evidence, to warrant the jury in inferring that it was the watch which had been stolen a short time before, in the nighttime, from Mr. Hitt's dwelling house. An eminent author on Evidence says: “It is an established rule of evidence that when, on a trial for larceny, identity is in question, testimony is admissible to show that other property which had been stolen at the same time was also in the possession of the defendant when he had in his possession the property charged in the indictment.” 3 Rice, Ev. 732.

It is also contended that the evidence is insufficient to prove that appellant stole the watch. The uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Hitt is that on Christmas night his watch...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT