Lunsford v. Com.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1901
• Citation: 63 S.W. 781
• Parties: LUNSFORD v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

63 S.W. 781

LUNSFORD v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 19, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Hopkins county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Smith Lunsford was convicted of the offense of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, and he appeals. Reversed.

C. J. Waddill and W. J. Cox, for appellant.

Morrison Breckinridge and R. J. Breckinridge, for the Commonwealth.

WHITE, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property of the value of more than $20, knowing same to be stolen. His punishment was fixed at two years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

The first error complained of is the overruling a demurrer to the indictment. We are of opinion that the indictment is sufficient.

The next ground of complaint is the admission in proof of the confessions of Cebe Edmunds and Lon Edgar, made in the absence of the accused, in which they confessed to having stolen the property,--some clothing. The attorney general confesses this was error, and says in his brief that he is unable to find any case where such proof was ever admitted. With this conclusion of the attorney general we concur. The only testimony against appellant was that of the committing magistrate as to the evidence given by appellant on the trial before him of the parties accused of the theft. It is insisted that this evidence did not in any way make out a case against appellant, and that, therefore, at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, a verdict of acquittal should have been directed. We are of opinion that this evidence fails to show appellant to be guilty. If appellant's testimony given before the examining court be true, he did not know what the valise contained which he assisted in carrying. If it is not true, appellant is not shown to have any connection with or possession of the stolen goods. We conclude, therefore, that an acquittal should have been directed at the close of the evidence for the prosecution. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Reported by Edward W. Hines, Esq., of the Frankfort bar, and formerly state reporter.

---------