People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HARRIS.

53 N.W. 780

93 Mich. 617

PEOPLE v. HARRIS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 2, 1892

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE S. HOSMER, Judge.

James H. Harris was convicted of aiding to conceal stolen property and brings error. Affirmed.

Hamilton Baluss, for appellant.

A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the People.

MCGRATH C.J.

The information contained two counts. The first charged defendants with the larceny of a horse; the second, aiding in the concealment, well knowing it to have been stolen. The jury found Harris guilty under the second count. It is insisted that the testimony tended to show that he was guilty of larceny, but did not tend to show that he was guilty of aiding in the concealment; and the case of People v Partridge, 86 Mich. 243, 49 N.W. 149, is relied upon. In that case the testimony tended to show that respondent had actually committed the offense charged in the first count, and the offense charged in the second count was an assault without intending to commit the crime charged in the first. In the present case, Harris was some miles away when the horse was actually taken, and the jury have undoubtedly found that he was not actually or constructively present when the crime was committed. 1 Whart. Crim. Law, (9th Ed.) � 927. But the proofs tended clearly to show that Harris knew that the horse was stolen; that he was actively engaged in assisting in the disposition of the horse; that he had represented to persons to whom he and his associate were endeavoring to sell the horse that they owned the horse, and, again, that his associate owned the horse, and that the horse was poor in flesh, because his associate's children had been driving and caring for the horse; that, when arrested, he claimed to the sheriff that "we bought the horse," and, again, that his associate owned the horse. The testimony clearly brings the case within the rule of People v. Reynolds, 2 Mich. 422, where, referring to section 9142 of the statute, making it an offense to "aid in the concealment" of property, knowing it to have been stolen, the court say: "The evil intended to be guarded against by the enactment of that law was to prevent persons from rendering important, efficient services to a felon, in aiding him in the concealment of stolen property; and that aid must be deemed quite as important and efficient which would enable the principal felon to convert the stolen property to his own use,...