Sanford v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | 28022 |
| Citation | 124 So. 353,155 Miss. 295 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SANFORD v. STATE |
1. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Unexplained possession of stolen property does not warrant inference that one in possession received it from another knowing it had been stolen.
Unexplained possession of stolen property shortly after commission of larceny does not warrant an inference that one in possession of property received it from another knowing that it had been stolen.
2. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. In prosecution for receiving stolen goods, record of another's conviction of burglary held incompetent.
In prosecution for receiving stolen goods taken from burglarized store, record of another's conviction of burglary of store held incompetent.
3. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Where commission of larce by defendant was not negatived, peremptory instruction requested in prosecution for receiving stolen goods should have been given.
In prosecution for receiving stolen goods, where burglary was proven, but commission of larceny by defendant was not negatived, peremptory instruction requested by him should have been given.
APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county, Second district, HON W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Gentry Sanford was convicted for receiving stolen property knowing it had been stolen, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Reversed, and appellant discharged.
Roberson & Cook, of Clarksdale, for appellant.
If appellant committed larceny then it follows as a matter of law, that he did not commit the crime for which he is charged. One cannot receive stolen property from himself. One cannot steal property and be convicted of having received the same property knowing it to have been stolen.
Sartorious v. State, 24 Miss. 602; Frank v. State, 67 Miss. 125; Manning v. State, 129 Miss. 179, 91 So. 902.
The possession of recently stolen property does not raise any presumption either of fact or of law that the one found in such possession is guilty of "having received the property knowing it to have been stolen."
A plea of guilty or record of conviction of another party for the crime of larceny out of which a charge of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen arose, is inadmissible on trial of charge for receiving stolen property.
Kirby v. United States, 43 L.Ed. 890, 174 U.S. 47.
W. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The recent possession of stolen property raises the presumption and calls upon the accused for an explanation and casts upon him the burden of accounting for his possession.
Foster v. State, 52 Miss. 695; Autman v. State, 126 Miss. 629, 89 So. 265; Barrett v. State, 118 So. 727.
The appellant was convicted for receiving stolen property knowing that it had been stolen.
The burglary of a store was proven, or at least we will assume that it was, and certain articles of merchandise were stolen therefrom. Shortly thereafter the appellant and Sam Madison offered to sell some of the articles of merchandise which they then had, to Hudson, who declined to purchase, but permitted them to store the articles with him. Afterwards a coat stolen from the store was sold by the appellant, who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quan v. State
... ... case as to whether the defendant was guilty of having ... knowingly received stolen property, the state's case ... wholly fails because it did not negative the commission of ... the larceny itself by the appellant ... Sanford ... v. State, 155 Miss. 295, 124 So. 353 ... It was ... error for the lower court to permit the state to show the ... conviction of Frank Adams and for the state to show ... statements made by Frank Adams without legally accounting for ... his absence as a witness ... ...
- Wood v. State
-
State v. Jackson.
...in accord with the view of the Supreme Court of the United States, Carpenter v. State, 190 Ind. 611, 614, 131 N.E. 375; Sanford v. State, 155 Miss. 295, 297, 124 So. 353. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. Donaruma, 260 Mass 233, 157 N.E. 538, 539, had before it a case in w......
-
State v. Dall
...146 N.E. 818; Wertheimer v. State (1929), 201 Ind. 572, 169 N.E. 40; State v. Adams (1903), 133 N.C. 667, 45 S.E. 553; Sanford v. State (1929), 155 Miss. 295, 124 So. 353; People v. Grizzle (1942), 381 Ill. 278, 44 N.E.2d 917; see People v. De Filippis (1966), 34 Ill.2d 129, 214 N.E.2d 897,......