State v. Beeman

• Decision Date: 06 February 1909
• Citation: 99 P. 756,51 Wash. 557
• Parties: STATE v. BEEMAN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

99 P. 756

51 Wash. 557

STATE v. BEEMAN.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 6, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Thos. H. Brents Judge.

George Beeman was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Cain &amp Hurspool, for appellant.

Otto B Rupp and John H. McDonald, for the State.

CHADWICK J.

Appellant seeks to reverse this case upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. In his brief he lays down the premise that the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is insufficient to justify a conviction citing the several decisions of this court to that effect. It will be borne in mind that appellant was charged with the crime of burglary, the gist of which is a breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor or felony. In such cases the rule is that mere possession of stolen property without other evidence of guilt is not regarded as prima facie evidence of the breaking and entering, but is a circumstance to be considered by the jury with all other facts and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence, or in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. No instruction was given or requested upon the point now urged by counsel, but, admitting the question as properly before us, we think there was sufficient testimony, if believed by the jury, to warrant a conviction in this case. The house burglarized was unoccupied at the time. It was broken into and property was taken, thus indicating that some one was guilty of the crime of burglary. The fact that property identified as belonging to the complaining witness was found at the home of the appellant might be insufficient, in itself, to warrant the verdict, but there was evidence tending to show that the property, a feather bed, was not only in the possession of the appellant, but that the feathers had been removed, and the tick concealed from casual observation in a barrel of dirty clothes; that appellant had in his possession several flour sacks partially filled with feathers; that he endeavored to toll an officer, who held a search warrant, out of the house on pretense of going to the cellar, after a word in a whispered undertone to his wife; that appellant and his wife first denied possession of the feather bed, and, upon discovery of the tick, made conflicting statements to the officer; that tracks of a two-wheeled cart drawn by two horses...