Johnson v. The State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1897 |
| Docket Number | 18,357 |
| Parties | Johnson v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Criminal Court.
Affirmed.
David Johnson and J. O. Spahr, for appellant.
W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General and Merrill Moores, for State.
The appellant was convicted of petit larceny on an indictment charging both larceny and burglary, and sentenced to pay a fine of ten dollars 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 Chirstmas week of 1896, had been entered by unknown persons, in the night time, 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 night time, 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 possession the property charged in the indictment.'" 3 Rice Ev., p. 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 and chain were taken from his bedroom by some unknown person, and that he valued the chain at $ 1.25 and the watch at $ 13.75. Timothy Splann, the chief of detectives of the city, with two other officers, went a day or two afterwards to Johnson's room in the city, and found an overcoat. Johnson stated that he got the coat at a misfit store in Louisville, and claimed that the watch then on his person was his own property. They also found there some silverware and a crucible to be used in the melting of gold and silver. The overcoat was fully identified by George R. Root, as were the gloves and handkerchief in its pockets, as his property which had been stolen from his residence in Indianapolis about the same time. The silverware was identified by the witness Sophia Simon, the owner. It was stolen from her house about the same time that the watch in question was stolen.
When it is proved that property has been stolen, and the same property, recently after the larceny, is found in the exclusive possession of another, the law imposes upon such person the burden of accounting for his possession, and of showing that such possesion was innocently acquired; and if he fails to so satisfactorily account for such possession, or gives a false account, the presumption arises that he is the thief. Smathers v. State, 46 Ind. 447; Jones v. State, 49 Ind. 549; Bailey v. State, 52 Ind. 462, 21 Am. Rep. 128; Madden v. State, ante, 183, and cases there cited; Goodman v. State, 141 Ind. 35, 39 N.E. 939.
The appellant gave a false account, both as to the watch described in the indictment, and the overcoat not therein described. He made no attempt to account for his possession of the silverware. All this authorized and justified the jury in presuming that appellant was the thief that stole the watch, at least.
In this connection it is earnestly contended that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of Mr. Root and Sophia Simon as to the stealing of the overcoat and silverware found in appellant's possession....
To continue reading
Request your trial