Parsons v. State

• Decision Date: 09 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 23824.,23824.
• Parties: PARSONS v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

191 Ind. 194

131 N.E. 381

PARSONS

v.STATE.

No. 23824.^*

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 9, 1921.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.

Harry Parsons was convicted of receiving, concealing, and aiding in the concealment of a stolen automobile, and he appeals. Affirmed.J. Herbert Hartman and Wm. H. Faust, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

TOWNSEND, C. J.

Appellant was indicted under section 2273, Burns 1914, for knowingly receiving, concealing and aiding in the concealment of a stolen automobile. A trial by jury resulted in his conviction.

[1][2][3] It is claimed that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, in this, that there is a total lack of evidence to identify the automobile charged in the indictment as an automobile knowingly received by appellant.

Appellant's contention finally reduces itself to this, that the only evidence introduced to identify the car was that of the alleged thieves, and that this is uncorroborated. In this connection it is sufficient to say that appellant's own confession was corroboration; but it is contended by appellant that, because this confession was made under inducement, it must be corroborated, and that the corroboration of the confession by the thief is not sufficient.

In all of these propositions counsel for the appellant are in error. Section 2115, Burns 1914, makes a confession by inducement competent evidence, and provides that the matters which induced the confession shall be heard by the jury, and this section then provides that such confession shall be corroborated. Corroboration by an accomplice is sufficient. It has been held in this state that one may be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice alone, if it is sufficiently satisfactory to the jury. Johnson v. State, 65 Ind. 269.

Our Code, by the third subdivision of section 2111, Burns 1914, makes accomplices who consent to testify competent witnesses; and this court in Schuster v. State, 178 Ind. 320, 99 N. E. 422, approved an instruction which told the jury that they might convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Johnson v. State, supra, and Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482, 485, 21 N. E. 285, are there cited with approval.

[4][5] It is also complained by appellant that evidence was admitted, over his objection, that he had received and concealed, or helped to conceal, other stolen...