State v. Freedman
| Decision Date | 27 September 1901 |
| Citation | 53 A. 356,19 Del. 403 |
| Court | Court of General Sessions of Delaware |
| Parties | STATE v. HARRY FREEDMAN |
The prisoner on September 30th, was probated, upon entering into the necessary bond.
Court of General Sessions, New Castle County, September Term, 1901.
INDICTMENT FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS (No. 78, September Term, 1901).
Herbert H. Ward, Attorney-General, and Robert H. Richards, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
William Michael Byrne and Walter H. Hayes for the defendant.
OPINION
LORE, C.J., charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:--Harry Freedman, the defendant, is indicted for receiving stolen goods.
The indictment contains three counts. The first charges that the defendant feloniously did buy one goatskin knowing it to have been stolen. The second, that he feloniously did receive the same. The third, that he feloniously did conceal the same.
It is conceded by the State that there is no evidence of the concealment of the skin; the third count is therefore not to be considered by you at all.
We have been asked by the counsel for the defendant to direct you to return a verdict of not guilty. This we decline to do. We consider the guilt or innocence of the defendant not to be a question of law for the Court to decide but one of fact for your determination under the law.
It is necessary in this case for you to be satisfied by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,--
First. That the goatskin was stolen.
Second. That it was the property of Charles Baird & Co., as laid in the indictment.
Third. That when Freedman bought or received it he knew that it was stolen.
These are all material elements of the crime and must all be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Knowledge that goods are stolen, may come from declarations made at the time, or from circumstances surrounding the transaction. In such matters the buyer is presumed to have ordinary intelligence, and you may consider the circumstances under which the skin was bought in this case as affecting the knowledge of the defendant whether the person offering it for sale came by it honestly or otherwise,
Mere possession of stolen goods standing by itself, does not establish such knowledge or guilt; but it is a circumstance to be considered with all the evidence in the case.
Good character of the accused, when proven, is like any other testimony tending to show innocence. The jury are the judges of its quality and weight.
While a jury may convict upon the unsupported testimony of a participant or confederate in the same crime; the better rule is that conviction should not be had unless such testimony is corroborated in some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...and evidence was admitted of the passing of other counterfeit money, of the same kind at other times, to show guilty knowledge. In the Friedman case, the defendant was charged receiving stolen goods. Evidence of other similar transactions was also admitted, to show guilty knowledge. The rep......
-
State v. Handy
... ... transactions between A. and the accused could not be shown to ... establish the guilt of the accused. The State contended that ... the testimony was admissible to show guilty knowledge of the ... accused that the watch had been stolen at the time he ... received it. Citing State v. Freedman, 3 Penne. 403, ... 405, 53 A. 356; State v. Greco, ante, 104 A. 637 ... Verdict guilty ... P ... Warren Green, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State ... Philip ... L. Garrett for the accused ... BOYCE, ... J., sitting ... ...
-
State v. Stewart
... ... facts and circumstances of the case, beyond a reasonable ... doubt, that it is true, without any confirmation of such ... testimony. And in such a case, it would be their duty to do ... 1 ... Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 380; State vs ... Freedman, 19 Del. 403, 3 Penne. 403, 53 A. 356 ... Where ... there is conflict of testimony, as in this case, you should ... endeavor to reconcile it if you can. If you cannot you must ... determine whose testimony you deem most entitled to credit ... and belief, taking into consideration all ... ...
-
State v. Frantz
... ... satisfied from all the facts and circumstances of the case, ... beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is true, without any ... confirmation of such testimony; and in such case it would be ... their duty to do so. 1 Greenleaf on Ev., § 380; ... State v. Freedman, 19 Del. 403, 3 Penne. 403, 53 A ... 356. The weight to be given to the testimony of a ... co-conspirator is for the jury alone, and to be considered in ... view of all the evidence. State v. Stiegler, et al., ... If you ... believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that ... ...