State v. Alderman

• Decision Date: 16 December 1910
• Citation: 83 Conn. 597,78 A. 331
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ALDERMAN.

78 A. 331

83 Conn. 597

STATE

v. ALDERMAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 16, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Samuel A. Alderman was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen goods, and he appeals. No error.

David E. Fitz Gerald, Walter J. Walsh, and Arthur B. O'Keefe, for appellant.

John P. Kellogg, Asst. State's Atty., for the State.

RORABACK, J. The information contains five counts, each charging the commission of a different offense at Waterbury in 1909. The record of this case discloses 30 reasons of appeal, one being that the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. An examination of the evidence reported shows that there was evidence before the jury which if believed by them justified their verdict. It is apparent that there could not have been any serious controversy as to the fact that the property described in the several counts in the information had been stolen. It was also conceded that the accused had purchased this property from one Abraham Bisnovitch. The defendant contended that he had bought it in good faith, and that Bisnovitch in the ordinary course of business delivered the goods to him at his usual place of business in the city of New Haven. The controlling facts to be found from the evidence was the fact of knowledge upon the part of the accused that the property in question had been stolen. Bisnovitch and his son both testified that Alderman, the accused, was informed before the sale was made to him that the goods were stolen property. The testimony upon this subject was in such direct conflict that from the facts disclosed by the record it is apparent that the jury in the rightful exercise of their province of passing upon the credibility of witnesses might have found against the accused. It was so held by the trial court in denying the motion to set aside the verdict, and therefore error cannot be predicated upon such a decision upon the facts presented in this case. Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 52 Atl. 724, and other cases there cited.

Eight of the reasons of appeal embody the proposition that one cannot be held criminally liable under the statute for receiving stolen goods unless the evidence shows that the property was received by the accused from one who actually participated in the original theft. The copper which was purchased by the defendant in this case was stolen from the cars of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company while in its freight yards in Waterbury. No evidence was offered connecting Bisnovitch with the removal of the stolen property from the possession of the railroad company. Section 1210 of the General Statutes of 1902, provides that "every person who shall receive and conceal any stolen goods or articles, knowing them to be stolen, shall be prosecuted and punished as principal, although the person who committed the theft be not convicted thereof." The essential elements of this offense are: (1) The property must have been stolen. (2) It must have been received by the accused with the knowledge that it was stolen. (3) It must have been concealed within the meaning of the law. (4) It must have been received and concealed by the accused with a felonious intent. If the intent be honest, of course the offense is not constituted. But it is wrongful if the object be to aid the thief, or obtain a reward, or other pecuniary gain from the owner. 2 Wharton on Criminal Law (7th Ed.) § 1891. The offense created by this statute is not in receiving the stolen goods from the thief, or from any other particular person, but receiving and concealing them knowing them to have been stolen with an unlawful intent. State v. Kaplan, 72 Conn. 635, 639, 45 Atl. 1918; State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429, 439; May's Criminal Law (2d Ed.) § 324; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 19 Sup. Ct. 574, 43 L. Ed. 890. So it is that if the goods were in fact stolen as alleged in the different counts of the Information, and if these goods were received and concealed by the accused with a felonious intent when he knew that they had been stolen, he could be convicted of the crimes charged, even if...