Magee v. People

• Citation: 28 N.E. 1077,139 Ill. 138
• Parties: MAGEE v. PEOPLE.
• Decision Date: 02 November 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

139 Ill. 138

28 N.E. 1077

MAGEE

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 2, 1891.

Error to circuit court, Menard county; C. EPLER, Judge. Affirmed.

Milton Magee was convicted of burglary, and appeals.T. W. McNeeley, for plaintiff in error.

Charles Nusbaum and Geo. Hunt, Atty. Gen., for the People.

WILKIN, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the court below of the crime of burglary, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years. The principal ground upon which a reversalof the judgment is urged is that it was not authorized by the evidence produced on the trial. The indictment charged that the defendant burglariously entered the dwelling-house of one James Wood, and stole, among other things, a silver watch, the property of said Wood, of the value of $10. The proof established the burglary beyond all doubt, and clearly showed that the watch was stolen at the same time. The burglary and larceny was committed after 8 o'clock A. M., and the same afternoon the watch was in the possession of plaintiff in error, and by him sold to another party for $1.25. Mr. Wood, the owner, testified the watch was worth about $8, and no one placed a lower value upon it. Plaintiff in error attempted to account for his possession of the stolen property by swearing himself, and proving by one George Hohimer, that he purchased it of a stranger about two hours before he sold it, he swearing he paid $1 for it, and Hohimer that the price paid was $2 or $2.50. The prisoner also attempted to give an account of his whereabouts on the forenoon of the day of the burglary, which account the evidence on behalf of the people tended to show was untrue. The evidence mainly relied upon to support the conviction was the possession of the stolen watch recently after the burglary, and the failure of the defendant to satisfactorily account for that possession. Had the charge been the larceny of the watch, there could have been no question that the possession of it by the defendant, under the circumstances proved, would have made a prima facie case against him, and, if the jury had not believed his explanation as to how he acquired that possession, (as they evidently did not here,) they would have been warranted on that proof alone in finding him guilty. The proof being clear that the watch was stolen at the time the burglary was committed, the possession of it so recently after the burglary is also prima facie evidence that the defendant committed the burglary. Possession of the fruits of a burglary immediately or soon after the crime is committed, unexplained, is presumptive evidence that the party having that possession used the means by which the owner was deprived of it. Smith v. People, 115 Ill. 20, 3 N. E. Rep. 733; Davis v. People, 1 Parker, Crim. R., 447. We think in this case the jury were fully justified in disbelieving the evidence of both the defendant and his witness Hohimer as to the purchase of the watch. They contradict each other as to the amount paid for it. Neither of them pretends to give a description of the person from whom it was purchased. The evidence of the...