Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 3933 |
| Citation | 82 S.W.2d 521,190 Ark. 979 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; J. Sam Wood, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Festus Gillam, for appellant.
Carl E Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Williams, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and tried in the Greenwood District of Sebastian County for burglary and grand larceny committed on the night of December 20, 1934, and was convicted and adjudged to serve terms in the State penitentiary on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, from which is this appeal.
It appears from the record that on the night of December 20, 1934, the depot of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a corporation, situated at Bonanza, Arkansas, was entered, and certain property of said company and of Frances Worthen, its agent, was stolen. A short time thereafter, some of the property was found near Williams, Oklahoma, in possession of persons to whom appellant had given it.
The first assignment of error for a reversal of the judgment is that the property was not sufficiently identified by the prosecuting witness, Frances Worthen. It is argued that she did not identify the articles belonging to her by any particular marks so as to distinguish them from other articles of like character. She testified positively that each article belonged to her, and that she left them in said depot when it was closed up, and that the depot was broken open that night and each article present in the court was stolen from her. This was sufficient identification. She recognized them as her property, and it was not necessary that she go further and identify each article by any particular mark. Estes v. State, 180 Ark. 656, 22 S.W.2d 172.
The next assignment of error for a reversal of the judgment is that Frances Worthen did not testify as to the value of each article. She testified that the aggregate value of them all was more than $ 10, and this was sufficient to warrant the conviction for grand larceny so far as the value of the property was concerned. The depot was broken into, so the crime of burglary was completed, even though the value of the property did not exceed $ 10. Barrett v. State, 188 Ark. 510, 67 S.W.2d 202.
Appellant's next assignment of error for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows:
"You are instructed that the possession of property recently stolen without reasonable explanation of that possession is evidence that goes to you for your consideration under all the circumstances of the case, to be weighed as tending to show the guilt of the one in whose hands such property is found; but such evidence alone does not imperatively impose upon you the duty of convicting, even though it be not rebutted."
A similar instruction to this one was approved in the case of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...254 Ark. 620, 495 S.W.2d 532; Richie v. State, 250 Ark. 700, 466 S.W.2d 462; Duty v. State, 212 Ark. 890, 208 S.W.2d 162; Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521. Appellant next assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to allow Paul Guilton, a defense witness, to testify becaus......
-
State v. Hammond
...following cases: Lewis v. State, 165 Ala. 83, 51 So. 308 (1909); Luker v. State, 23 Ala.App. 379, 125 So. 788 (1930); Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521 (1935); People v. Henderson, 238 Cal.App.2d 566, 48 Cal.Rptr. 114 (1965); State v. Endorf, 219 Iowa 1321, 260 N.W. 678 (1935); ......
-
Ward v. State
...997 (1939); Morris v. State, 197 Ark. 778, 126 S.W.2d 93 (1939); Trammel v. State, 193 Ark. 21, 97 S.W.2d 902 (1936); Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521 (1935). Here, Ward was found to be in possession on Monday morning of property stolen during the weekend, but we need not depen......
-
Petty v. State, 5374
...on his part. Spivey v. State, 133 Ark. 314, 198 S.W. 101, and Pearrow v. State, 146 Ark. 182, 225 S.W. 311.' See also Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521. Appellant's third point is without merit. No objection was made to the entry of the judgment or the penitentiary commitment th......