State v. Jennett
| Decision Date | 28 February 1883 |
| Citation | 88 N.C. 665 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. S. JENNETT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for a larceny tried at Fall Term, 1882, of WASHINGTON Superior Court, before Gilliam, J.Attorney-General, for the State .
No counsel for the defendant.
The is so imperfect, that, in order to arrive at the facts, we are under the necessity of relying on conjecture, rather than upon His Honor's statement. Supposing that it was a case of clerical misprision, a certiorari was sent down for a more perfect record, but the same statement is returned to us.
The statement shows that on the 31st of January, 1881, the prosecutor, Davenport, “had a black dress-coat stolen from him in Plymouth, and that on the _____ day of August, 1882.” “That it was made by a merchant-tailor to order; that the defendant lived in the town and was often in Davenport's store.”
The state having rested its case upon proof of these facts, the defendant asked the court to withdraw from the jury the evidence of possession by defendant of the property alleged to have been stolen, and to instruct them that there was no evidence connecting him with the larceny. The court declined to give the instruction, and the defendant excepted. There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant appealed from the judgment pronounced.
The “case” does not state that the coat was found in the possession of the defendant, but we must infer that it was so found, from the fact that the defendant asked His Honor to withdraw the evidence of possession from the jury; otherwise the record would show that he had been convicted upon no other evidence than that the coat was stolen, and was made to order by a merchant-tailor, and the defendant was often in the store of the prosecutor. But assuming, as we must, that the coat was found in the possession of the defendant, we must infer from the defective statement that it was found in his possession in August, 1882.
Taking the case then to be, that the coat was the property of the prosecutor; that it was stolen from him in January, 1881; that it was found in the possession of the defendant in August, 1882; and that he lived in the town of Plymouth, and was often in the store of the prosecutor; does such a state of facts warrant the conviction of the defendant? We think it does not.
The state relies upon the fact of the stolen property being found in the defendant's possession, as raising a presumption that he is the thief. ““Presumptions,” says Mr. ARCHBOLD, “are of three kinds: violent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bogris
...of the property stolen and the circumstances of each particular case. (Smith v. State, 58 Ind. 340; State v. Hodge, 50 N.H. 510; State v. Jennett, 88 N.C. 665; Stover People, 56 N.Y. 315; Bellamy v. State, 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560; Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647, 4 N.W. 785; Jones v. State, 2......
-
State v. Holbrook, 217.
...presumptions arising therefrom-- strong, probable, slight or weak, depending on the circumstances--are well understood. State v. Jennett, 88 N.C. 665. "The possession of stolen property recently after the theft, and under circumstances excluding the intervening agency of others, affords pre......
-
State v. Holbrook
...and the presumptions arising therefrom--strong, probable, slight or weak, depending on the circumstances--are well understood. State v. Jennett, 88 N.C. 665. "The of stolen property recently after the theft, and under circumstances excluding the intervening agency of others, affords presump......
-
State v. Jenkins
...facts in the particular case from two years to a period of a few days. Beck v. State, 44 Tex. 430; State v. Rights, 82 N. C. 675; State v. Jennett, 88 N. C. 665; Warren v. State, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 106; Com. v. Berney, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 61; Yates v. State, 37 Tex. 202; Mondragon v. State, 3......