State v. Belcher

• Decision Date: 20 November 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 800,136 Mo. 135
• Parties: The State v. Belcher, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 S.W. 800

136 Mo. 135

The State v. Belcher, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 20, 1896

Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court. -- Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.

Reversed.

R. F Walker, attorney general, and Morton Jourdan, assistant attorney general, for the state.

(1) The testimony in this case clearly shows the exclusive possession by the defendant of a portion of the goods taken at the time of the burglary and larceny. The defendant attempted to account for the possession and it was an issue for the jury to determine under the instructions whether or not he had satisfactorily obtained possession of these goods. They evidently found that the possession had not been satisfactorily obtained and that this fact, together with the defendant's admissions, established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (2) The verdict is not in opposition to the instructions given by the court, but entirely in harmony with them.

Gantt P. J. Sherwood and Burgess, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Gantt, P. J.

The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Douglas county for burglary of and larceny from the storehouse of W. H. Wren on Clever Creek.

The testimony very clearly established that Mr. Wren's store was burglarized about the first day of January, 1895, and about one hundred dollars' worth of merchandise consisting of tobacco, overalls, shirtings, etc., stolen therefrom. About the first of May succeeding, these goods were found -- a portion on the premises of Mrs. Belcher, the mother of defendant, and the remainder upon the premises of one Edwards. The defendant was wearing a pair of overalls and a pair of shoes which Wren thought were his as they corresponded very closely with those stolen.

Jim Belcher, a brother of defendant was arrested at the same time defendant was, and confessed the burglary and Edwards was also convicted thereof.

There was no evidence that defendant was present at the time of the burglary save a confession alleged to have been made to another convict who was in jail with him. The witnesses who executed the search warrant all agree that defendant consistently denied all knowledge that the goods were stolen till some months after the burglary. He testified he bought the goods he wore through his brother. Both Edwards and James Belcher testified that John, the defendant, was not engaged in the burglary. The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied all complicity in the crime.

The reputation of Mrs. Belcher for chastity appears to be bad, and the defendant's reputation for veracity was bad.

The circuit court instructed the jury that "if they believed from the evidence that the store of W. H. Wren was broken into and goods stolen therefrom at the time and place mentioned in the indictment, and that soon thereafter some of the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant the law will presume that he did the breaking and stealing unless such possession is explained consistent with his innocence."

The recent possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt but what constitutes recent possession which will justify this instruction is a preliminary...