Partlow v. State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 23731.,23731. |
| Citation | 128 N.E. 436,191 Ind. 660 |
| Parties | PARTLOW v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
John L. Partlow was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and appeals. Affirmed.
Chas. S. Wiltsie, Emsley W. Johnson, and Jos. W. Hutchinson, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury and Remster A. Bingham, both of Indianapolis, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the trial court on an indictment charging him with feloniously receiving stolen goods at the time knowing that the same had been stolen. The error on which appellant relies for reversal is that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.
[1] The specification of error on which appellant principally relies is the action of the court in giving to the jury instruction No. 2, which is in the following words:
“The statutes of Indiana define the crime of receiving stolen goods as follows: ‘Whoever buys, receives, conceals or aids in the concealment of anything of value, which has been stolen *** shall, if the goods be of the value of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or more, on conviction, suffer the punishment prescribed for grand larceny.”’
By this instruction the court attempted to define the crime with which appellant was charged, but failed to embody in the definition the element of knowledge, on the part of appellant at the time he received the goods, of the fact that they were stolen goods. The definition thus given was incomplete and inaccurate, but the inaccuracy was not such a one as could not be cured by a proper instruction. The definition stated a part of the elements essential to constitute the crime charged, but did not state all of the essential elements of such crime. There was nothing in the instruction to conflict with or to contradict an instruction to the effect that the jury could not convict the defendant unless it found from the evidence that he received the property described in the indictment, that the property so received had been stolen, and the defendant knew when he received the property that it had been stolen.
If the instruction has informed the jury that it would be justified in finding the defendant guilty if it found certain enumerated facts to be true, and had failed to include in the enumeration a fact or element essential to establish guilt, such an instruction would be in conflict with an instruction to the effect that the jury could not convict without proof of the omitted fact or element. Rahke v. State (1907) 168 Ind. 615, 81 N. E. 584.
Where two instructions given are inconsistent with each other, such inconsistency shows that one of such instructions is erroneous. The jury cannot follow the law as stated in both instructions because of such inconsistency. In such a case the court has no means of knowing that the jury did not follow the law as stated in the erroneous instruction, unless it appears from the record that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Lake v. Bain, 28400.
-
Partlow v. State
...court, the court which tried the cause in this case, and from which court an appeal was taken to this court and affirmed. Partlow v. State, 191 Ind. 660, 128 N. E. 436. The petition is based upon the presentation of new matter and evidence disclosed by the sworn confessions of Carl E. Berna......
- Partlow v. State