State v. Hale
| Decision Date | 11 June 1885 |
| Citation | 12 Or. 352,7 P. 523 |
| Parties | STATE v. HALE. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Umatilla county.
Wm. M Ramsey, for appellant.
Morton D. Clifford, Dist. Atty., and W.H. Holmes, for respondent.
The defendant was indicted for the larceny of certain cattle tried and convicted, and from the judgment of conviction brings this appeal to this court. There are numerous assignments of error, but, after an attentive examination of them, we are satisfied there is but one that is material and error. The court instructed the jury that "when property recently stolen is found in the possession of any person such possession raises a presumption of guilt, and unless he shows that he came honestly into the possession of said property the law will presume that he stole the same." The objection to this instruction is that the weight to be given to fact or circumstance is, under our statute, to be left to the jury; that the court is not authorized to pass upon the weight to be given to any circumstance, or to direct the jury in reference thereto. It is often said that the recent possession of stolen property by the prisoner unexplained, raises the presumption that he is the thief, and that this presumption shifts the burden from the state to the prisoner. But the presumption raised by such circumstances is one of fact, from which the jury may infer guilt. There is no legal presumption of guilt from the recent possession of stolen property.
In Conkwright v. People, 35 Ill. 204, it was held error to instruct a jury, upon a trial for larceny, that possession of stolen property soon after it is stolen is of itself prima facie evidence of theft by the possessor, and the burden of proving his possession to have been honest is there thrown upon him. The question is undoubtedly a vexatious one, and upon it, as Mr. Bishop says, "all sorts of utterances are to be found in the books." Bish.Crim.Proc. § 740. But we regard it as a question of fact and not of law, to be submitted to the jury, and for them to determine whether the defendant is the guilty party or not. In Curtis v. State, 6 Coldw. 9, the court say: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborne
... ... considered by the jury, and from which, when taken in ... connection with other circumstances, they may infer guilt ... This circumstance, standing alone, is not sufficient to ... warrant a conviction. 12 Cyc. 395; State v. Lee ... Hale, 12 Or. 352, 7 P. 523; State v. Maloney, ... 27 Or. 55, 39 P. 398; State v. Pomeroy, 30 Or. 25, ... 46 P. 797; State v. Sally, 41 Or. 370, 70 P. 396; ... State v. Hodge, 50 N.H. 510; Hickory v. United ... States, 160 U.S. 408, 16 Sup.Ct. 327, 40 L.Ed. 474; ... ...
-
State v. Black
...Or. at page 138, 104 P. at page 895; State v. Minnick, 54 Or. 86, 93, 102 P. 605; State v. Pomeroy, 30 Or. 16, 25, 46 P. 797; State v. Hale, 12 Or. 352, 7 P. 523. The record here discloses that the State adduced evidence that the animals were found on defendant's home ranch in a field about......
-
State v. Ireland
... ... 29 Ga. 430; State v. Storts, 138 Mo. 127, 39 S.W ... 483.) Unexplained possession of recently stolen property does ... not raise a legal presumption of guilt and shift the burden ... of proof upon the accused, but is merely a fact from which ... guilt may be inferred. (State v. Hale, 12 Or. 352, 7 ... P. 523; Lawson's Criminal Defenses, 1048; State v ... Griffin, 71 Iowa 372, 32 N.W. 447; State v ... Brown, 75 Mo. 317.) It is error to instruct the jury, ... upon a trial for larceny, that possession of stolen property ... soon after it is stolen is of itself prima facie ... ...
-
State v. Collett
... ... State, 5 Lawson's Criminal ... Defenses, 625.) "Unexplained possession of recently ... stolen property does not raise a legal presumption of guilt, ... and shift the burden of proof upon the accused, but is merely ... a fact from which guilt may be inferred." (State v ... Hale, 12 Or. 352, 7 P. 523; 6 Lawson's Criminal ... Defenses, 1048; People v. Antonio, 27 Cal. 404; ... Ballamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560; ... Conkwright v. People, 35 Ill. 204; Hoge v ... People, 117 Ill. 35, 6 N.E. 796.) "The bare ... possession of property recently stolen is not ... ...