State v. McAndrews

• Decision Date: 28 May 1885
• Citation: 15 R.I. 30,23 A. 304
• Parties: STATE v. MCANDREWS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

23 A. 304

15 R.I. 30

STATE

v. MCANDREWS.¹

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 28, 1885.

Exceptions to court of common pleas. Providence county. Exceptions overruled.

Indictment of Frank McAndrews for stealing money from the person of one Jennings. Defendant was convicted, and excepts.

Samuel P. Colt, Atty. Gen., for the State.

George J. West, for defendant.

DURFEE, C. J. The defendant, who was indicted in the court of common pleas for stealing from the person of William H. Jennings, and there tried and convicted, brings the case to this court for revision by bill of exceptions.

The first exception is because the court below, after the testimony for the state was in, refused to rule that the state had not made out a prima facie case, and allowed the case to go to the jury. The testimony for the state was to the effect that the defendant and Jennings were first seen on a street in Providence together, Jennings very drunk, and the defendant somewhat in liquor; that the defendant was searching Jennings' vest-pockets; that the two then walked off, the defendant having Jennings by the arm; that, while they were walking, the defendant was seen to put his hand into Jennings' pantaloons pocket, and take out a roll of bills, and put it into his own; that Jennings was soon after arrested for intoxication; that the defendant was also arrested for stealing; that the defendant, being asked what he had been going to do with Jennings, said he had been going to take him to his home; but, on being further questioned, did not seem to know who Jennings was; that the two were taken to the police station; that, the defendant being there searched, $17 in a roll were found in his pocket; that Jennings stated in the defendant's presence that he had between $17 and $20, but when searched was found to have but 96 cents, no bills; that the defendant, on being asked where he got the money, said he did not steal it, and repeated the statement several times, but could not seem to give any account of how he came by it; and that the next day Jennings, when perfectly sober, said in the defendant's presence that he did not know the defendant, and had never seen him before. The testimony seems to have been entirely decisive, except as to the felonious intent, and we think the court very clearly did not err in leaving the case to the jury on that point. Indeed, we do not see how the court could have found any pretext for taking it from the jury, or even how the jury, without some...