State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 17 March 1891 |
| Citation | 48 N.W. 401,45 Minn. 521 |
| Parties | STATE v MILLER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. In a criminal prosecution for the larceny of goods discovered in the defendant's possession, the fact of such possession, though considerable time may have elapsed (in this case 11 months) between the date of the larceny and the discovery, may be considered, in connection with other facts and circumstances tending to criminate the accused. Held, also, upon the facts disclosed by the evidence in this case, and in view of the general charge, that the refusal of the court to charge the jury that the possession was not sufficiently recent to warrant a verdict of guilty was not error.
2. Where, upon the evidence, an offense may fall within the definition of either of two degrees of larceny, according as the jury may find the facts in the case, it is not improper for the court to give to the jury the statutory definition of each, and the penalty annexed.
Appeal from district court, Olmsted county; START, Judge.
Geo. B. Edgerton and Burt W. Eaton, for appellant.
W. Logan Brackenridge, Co. Atty., and Moses E. Clapp, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to dismiss the action when the prosecution rested, and again to its refusal to direct a verdict for defendant when the evidence was all submitted; and also excepted “to that part of the charge in regard to recent possession, and the punishment for grand larceny in the first and second degrees.” There was also an exception to the refusal of the court to give to the jury the sixth special request of the defendant, which will be referred to later in the opinion. Upon these exceptions the defendant's assignments of error chiefly rest.
1. We have no doubt that there was a case made for the jury, both upon the whole evidence as presented, and also upon that of the prosecution. The question of the length of time which had elapsed between the larceny of the harness and the date of its discovery in the possession of the defendant, about 11 months, could not be eliminated from other material facts testified to bearing upon the defendant's complicity with the offense charged, but must necessarily have been considered in connection therewith, and, so considered, it was a circumstance of great importance. There was evidence in the case tending to show that he had made, or caused to be made, changes in the property rendering its identification more difficult, and also that he made false and contradictory statements as to where, when, and how he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Johnson
...v. State, 1 Md.App. 85, 227 A.2d 364, 368 (1967) (possession of items of stolen jewelry for more than six months); State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521, 48 N.W. 401, 402 (1891) (possession of a harness for more than eleven months); McHenry v. State, supra (possession of metal tools for more than s......
-
Lee v. United States
...State v. Brightman, 252 Iowa 1278, 110 N.W.2d 315 (5 months); McHenry v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 20, 2 P.2d 597 (8 months); State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521, 48 N.W. 401 (11 months); State v. Jenkins, 213 S.W. 796 ...
-
People v. Nixon
...tires involved in Boehm v. United States, 2 Cir., 271 F. 454, were found in defendant's possession four months later. In State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521, 48 N.W. 401, the stolen property was found in defendant's possession eleven months later. In each of these cases, the defendant's possessio......
-
State v. Anderson
...the appellant, in person or in concert with others, had assisted in stealing the Buick car, as charged in the indictment. State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521, 48 N. W. 401;State v. Hoshaw, 89 Minn. 307, 94 N. W. 873;State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 172 N. W. 313; State v. Jatal, supra. Upon the tr......