State v. Grey
| Decision Date | 06 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | 34997. |
| Citation | 154 Kan. 442,119 P.2d 468 |
| Parties | STATE v. GREY. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The unexplained possession of recently stolen property is "prima facie evidence" of guilt sufficient to warrant conviction.
Proof that a burglary was committed and that stolen goods were shortly thereafter found in possession of accused, when considered in connection with all other circumstances of case, including his failure satisfactorily to explain such possession, will sustain a conviction of burglary.
In prosecution resulting in conviction for burglary in second degree and for larceny, instruction stating the law regarding inferences which might be drawn from possession of stolen goods did not constitute reversible error. Gen.St.1935 21-524.
Where entrance of premises burglarized in April, 1939, was made by raising a window and articles of personalty obtained were pawned, in prosecution resulting in conviction of second degree burglary and larceny, permitting introduction of evidence that defendant pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and larceny committed in October, 1927, and in November 1927, and that in each case it appeared that entrance had been made through a window, and that defendant pawned the articles taken from the dwelling houses that had been burglarized, was not error, where purpose thereof was to allow the jury to compare the scheme or plan used in those instances with the scheme employed in the case involved. Gen.St.1935, 21-524.
An accused cannot be convicted of one crime by proof that he was guilty of another, but evidence which tends directly to show the accused guilty of the crime charged is not rendered incompetent because it also tends to prove him guilty of another and entirely different offense.
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for burglary in the second degree and for larceny. Gen.St.1935, 21-524
1. Unexplained possession of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt sufficient to warrant conviction.
2. Proof that a burglary was committed and that the stolen goods were shortly thereafter found in the possession of the accused, when considered in connection with all the other facts and circumstances of the case, including his failure satisfactorily to explain such possession, will sustain a conviction of burglary.
3. While a man cannot be convicted of one crime by proof that he was guilty of another, yet, evidence which tends directly to show the defendant guilty of the crime charged is not rendered incompetent because it also tends to prove him guilty of another and entirely different offense.
Appeal from District Court, Wyandotte County, Division No. 2; Willard M. Benton, Judge.
Hartzel Grey was convicted of burglary in the second degree and of larceny, and he appeals.
William M. Bradshaw, of Topeka, for appellant.
Jay S Parker, Atty. Gen., A. B. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph H. McDowell, Co. Atty., and Thomas E. Joyce and John J. Bukaty, Asst. Co. Attys., all of Kansas City, for appellee.
Under our statute, G.S.1935, 21-524, the defendant was charged in one count with burglary and larceny. He was convicted of burglary in the second degree and of larceny, and appeals.
On April 11, 1939, the home of C. N. Puckett in Kansas City was burglarized. Entrance was made by raising a window. Various articles of personal property, including a suit of clothes, were stolen. An employee of a pawn shop in Kansas City, Missouri, testified that he had been employed in the pawn shop for fifteen years,--that he knew the defendant,--that on April 12, 1939, the defendant pawned the suit of clothes in question at the pawn shop,--that defendant was not required to sign the pawn shop ticket "because he had previously signed a pawn slip for another suit that he pawned on April 6, 1939, by affixing thereto the name of Harry Todd."
Puckett testified that the suit of clothes pawned on April 12, 1939, was the suit stolen from his home.
On August 12, 1939, the defendant was arrested, fingerprinted and required to sign his name on the finger print card. The finger prints were compared with prior finger prints of defendant taken in 1927 on the occasion of the arrest of defendant on similar offenses and there was testimony that the finger prints were made by the same person. There was also testimony that the signatures made on the finger print cards in 1927 and 1939 and the signature "Harry Todd" made on the pawn slip above mentioned were made by one and the same person.
A detective in the police department in Kansas City testified that he was acquainted with the defendant; that he was present in the court room when the defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and larceny of a dwelling house by breaking and entering on October 31, 1927, and on the same day the witness heard the defendant plead guilty to a similar offense committed on November 1, 1927. The witness testified that in each of these burglaries, entrance was made through a window.
The testimony relating to the offenses committed in 1927 was objected to by defendant on the ground that such prior offenses were distinct and unrelated to the crime charged; that such evidence was highly prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and was an attempt on the part of the state to prove the defendant guilty of the crime charged by showing he had committed other offenses which had no connection with the crime with which he was being tried.
Defendant asserts error was committed in the admission of the evidence of the separate offenses committed in 1927 and in the giving of certain instructions.
Under the law of this state, unexplained possession of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gunby
...be admissible to show identity, scienter or guilty knowledge, intent, motive, system, malice, or to rebut defense); State v. Grey, 154 Kan. 442, 444-45, 119 P.2d 468 (1941) (plan); State v. Gwynne, 142 Kan. 13, 15, 45 P.2d 849 (1935) (robbery of second bank in vicinity); State v. Caldwell, ......
-
State v. Oswald
...has repeatedly held that possession of recently stolen goods when unexplained may be sufficient to uphold a conviction. In State v. Grey, 154 Kan. 442, 119 P.2d 468, defendant was charged in one count with burglary and larceny. At page 444 of the opinion, at page 469 of 119 P.2d this court ......
-
State v. Wood
...Defendant's argument that there was no evidence connecting him with the burglary may be laid to rest by what was said in State v. Grey, 154 Kan. 442 119 P.2d 468: 'Proof that a burglary was committed and that the stolen goods were shortly thereafter found in the possession of the accused, w......
-
State v. Myrick
...293 P. 389, 105 A.L.R. 1290; State v. Callabresi, 135 Kan. 463, 11 P.2d 725; State v. Gwynne, 142 Kan. 13, 45 P.2d 849; State v. Grey, 154 Kan. 442, 445, 119 P.2d 468; State v. Owen, supra). See, also, 2 Hatcher's Kansas Digest (Rev. ed.) § 268, p. 237. If the evidence is competent, materia......