People v. Barnhill
| Decision Date | 20 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 19058.,19058. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BARNHILL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Adams County; Fred G. Wolfe, Judge.
John Barnhill was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Hartzell, Cavanagh & Martin, of Carthage, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., J. LeRoy Adair, State's Atty., of Quincy, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, of Springfield, for the People.
The grand jury of Adams county, at the January, 1928, term of court, returned an indictment against plaintiff in error (hereafter called defendant) containing four counts. The first three counts charged defendant with knowingly receiving an automobile which had been stolen, and the fourth count charged him with stealing the automobile. The property was described in the indictment as ‘a Buick brougham,’ and its value was alleged as about $1,000. Defendant made a motion to quash the indictment, which the court overruled, and, on a plea of not guilty being entered, a jury was impaneled, and the cause tried. The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty ‘of receiving stolen property, knowing the same to be stolen, for the defendant's own gain and to prevent the owner from again possessing the same, in manner and form as charged in the indictment.’ The court overruled a motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, and rendered judgment on the verdict. Defendant has sued out a writ of error.
Several interesting questions are raised by the assignment of errors, but, in the view we take of the case, it will be unnecessary to discuss all of them.
The indictment is not bad because it charged defendant with receiving stolen property and with larceny of the property. The two offenses charged in the indictment are separate and distinct offenses, so made by different sections of the Criminal Code. It requires more than a single transaction to constitute guilt of the two offenses. The same party cannot be guilty of stealing the property and also guilty of receiving it from himself. Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565;Huggins v. People, 135 Ill. 243, 25 N. E. 1002,25 Am. St. Rep. 357;Watts v. People, 204 Ill. 233, 68 N. E. 563;People v. Thompson, 274 Ill. 214, 113 N. E. 322;People v. Ensor, 310 Ill. 483, 142 N. E. 175. In the latter case the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milanovich v. United States
...the federal statutes, the settled rule is that a person cannot be convicted for stealing goods and receiving them also. People v. Barnhill, 333 Ill. 150, 164 N.E. 154; People v. Daghita, 301 N.Y. 223, 93 N.E.2d 649; State v. Hamilton, 172 S.C. 453, 174 S.E. 396; Annotation 136 A.L.R. 1087; ......
- Gruner v. Rice
-
People v. Blumenfeld
... ... People v. Dalke, 336 Ill. 446, 168 N. E. 258;People v. Ensor, 310 Ill. 483, 142 N. E. 175. The rules laid down in those cases do not require a reversal of this case. While one person cannot receive stolen property from himself (People v. Barnhill, 333 Ill. 150, 164 N. E. 154), the evidence in this case does not show that plaintiff in error was in the house when the jewels were stolen or that he had any connection with the crime prior to his reception of the jewels from Wilma Harjes, who had already stolen them. Where the proof shows a ... ...
-
People v. Devore
... ... To the same effect is People v. Barnhill, 333 Ill. 150, 164 N.E. 154. The case of the plaintiff in error presents quite a different situation. Here, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving stolen property and there is no evidence to show that he was the thief. On a plea of guilty, the defendant confesses his guilt and ... ...