Newton v. Com.

Decision Date13 March 1914
Citation164 S.W. 108,158 Ky. 4
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County.

Rollie Newton was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Le Vega Clements, of Owensboro, for appellant.

James Garnett, Atty. Gen., and D. O. Myatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Appellant was indicted in the Daviess circuit court charged with knowingly receiving stolen goods, and upon his trial was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he appeals.

The indictment against him is as follows, to wit: "The grand jury of Daviess county, in the name and by the authority of the commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse Rollie Newton of the crime of receiving stolen property of greater value than $20.00, knowing the same to have been stolen at the time he received said property, committed in manner and form as follows, to wit: The said Rollie Newton did, in Daviess county, and on or about the ___ day of August, 1913 unlawfully and feloniously receive seven wagons which were then and there of greater value than $20.00 which wagons had theretofore been stolen from the Owensboro Wagon Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the commonwealth of Kentucky, and doing business at Owensboro, Daviess county Kentucky, and that said defendant did, knowing at the time he received said wagons that they had been so stolen, as aforesaid, from said Owensboro Wagon Company; contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of Kentucky."

This indictment was found under section 1199, Kentucky Statutes which is as follows, to wit: "Whoever shall receive any stolen goods, chattels or other thing, the stealing whereof is punished as a felony or misdemeanor, knowing the same to be stolen, shall be liable to the same punishment to which the person stealing the same is, by law, subjected. Such offenders may be convicted, though the principal offender has not been convicted."

The gravamen of the offense denounced by this statute is knowingly receiving stolen goods, and is a separate and distinct offense from the larceny itself. Keeping this in mind, the five objections to the sufficiency of the indictment will be considered.

It is first urged that there is no sufficient description of the larceny of the wagons alleged to have been received by appellant, and no sufficient allegation that there had been a larceny previous to the receiving by him of the property, and that it does not allege that the wagons had been feloniously taken or carried away.

In framing an indictment, under a statute which denounces a crime based upon the commission of a previous and different crime, the same technical particularity in describing the previous crime is not required as would have been in an indictment charging such original crime. Commonwealth v. Wilde, 5 Gray (Mass.) 83, 66 Am. Dec. 350; State v. Druxinman, 34 Wash. 257, 75 P. 814; State v. Makovsky, 67 Wash. 7, 120 P. 513, 531.

In this indictment it was unnecessary to charge in technical language the commission of the offense of larceny committed previous to the offense with which appellant is now charged; a charge in general language that the goods had been stolen before he received them was sufficient.

It is next objected that the indictment neither names the thief nor charges that appellant received the wagons from the thief. But such allegations are entirely unnecessary; the gist of the offense is in receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, and it can in no sense be material who stole them, or whether they were received from the thief. Roberson's Criminal Law, vol. 1, § 448.

The further objection urged is that there is no sufficient description of the stolen property; but the charge that the seven wagons had theretofore been stolen from the Owensboro Wagon Company was a sufficiently accurate description in such an indictment. It is unnecessary to charge the facts technically constituting larceny against the original takers.

It is again contended that the indictment does not name the owner of the property; but the indictment does charge that the wagons had theretofore been stolen from the Owensboro Wagon Company, and in such an indictment the allegation of ownership being merely for the purpose of identifying and describing the stolen property, and not being an essential element of the crime denounced by the statute, the same degree of accuracy as might be required in an indictment for the original larceny is not demanded. Certainly it may be fairly inferred, when one is charged with stealing from another, that such other has either been deprived of the ownership or possession of the stolen property.

Finally it is contended that the indictment is insufficient, because it fails to allege that the wagons were received by the defendant for the purpose of converting them to his own use, or of depriving the owner thereof. It is sufficient to say, in answer to this, that, under the statute quoted, it is not an essential element of the offense that there should be a conversion by the receiver of the stolen goods, or that he should receive the same with the purpose of depriving the owner thereof. The indictment in all its essential elements notified the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Sebree v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 1923
    ... ...          See, ... also, 16 Corpus Juris, 767-770; 24 Cyc. 494; Sandefur v ... Commonwealth, 143 Ky. 655, 137 S.W. 504; Newton v ... Commonwealth, 158 Ky. 4, 164 S.W. 108, and the Frierson ... Case, supra. The latter case and the Sandefur Case involved ... the exact ... ...
  • Bennett v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1932
    ...Rep. 611; Wilkey v. Com., 104 Ky. 325, 47 S.W. 219, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 578; Stubblefield v. Com., 197 Ky. 218, 246 S.W. 444; Newton v. Com., 158 Ky. 4, 164 S.W. 108; v. Com., 200 Ky. 534, 255 S.W. 142; Nelson v. Com., 232 Ky. 568, 24 S.W.2d 276. It will be seen from a review of the authorities......
  • Blusinsky v. Com.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • November 12, 1940
    ...v. Commonwealth, 255 Ky. 403, 74 S.W.2d 471, an indictment for knowingly receiving stolen property substantially like the indictment in the Newton case was good. In Cole v. Commonwealth, 246 Ky. 149, 54 S.W.2d 674, Cole was indicted for the offense of knowingly receiving stolen property, an......
  • Mercer v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • October 30, 1959
    ...the accused knowingly received property stolen by another person. Roberson's Kentucky Criminal Law, § 881a, p. 1101; Newton v. Commonwealth, 158 Ky. 4, 164 S.W. 108; Ellison v. Commonwealth, 190 Ky. 305, 227 S.W. Instruction No. 1 was on grand larceny. Instruction No. 2 on knowingly receivi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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