State v. North

• Decision Date: 18 June 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 799,95 Mo. 615
• Parties: STATE v. NORTH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 799

95 Mo. 615

STATE v. NORTH.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 18, 1888.

BURGLARY — POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS — INSTRUCTIONS.

Upon trial for burglary and larceny, where it was shown that some of the stolen property was found in defendant's possession the day after the burglary, and he introduced evidence tending to show an alibi, an instruction that where stolen property is so found, if the possessor fails to account for his possession in a manner consistent with his innocence, he is presumed to be a thief, is erroneous, because it excludes the evidence of an alibi from the consideration of the jury.¹

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; JAMES C. NORMILE, Judge.

Indictment of George North for burglary and larceny. Judgment of conviction, and defendant appeals.

Thos. B. Harvey and Thos. B. Estep, for appellant. B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen., for the State.

NORTON, C. J.

Defendant was indicted in the criminal court of the city of St. Louis, and charged with burglary and larceny, and on trial was convicted of both burglary and larceny, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that on the same day the offense charged was committed, and the day after it was committed, defendant was found in possession of goods stolen at the time the burglary was committed, and that he admitted he took them. The evidence of defendant himself, and that of another witness, tended to show an alibi at the time the burglary and larceny were committed. On this state of the evidence, the court gave the following instruction: "And where property has been stolen by means of a burglary, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and recently thereafter the same or any part thereof is found in possession of another, if he fails to account for such possession in a manner consistent with his innocence, such person is presumed to be a thief, and is also presumed to have used all means necessary to have secured access to such property; so that, from such recent possession, you are authorized to presume such person guilty of the burglary as well as the larceny." It is contended that, inasmuch as there was evidence tending to show an alibi, the above instruction is erroneous, in this: that the evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt, arising from the possession of stolen property soon after it was stolen, is limited to such evidence as tends to account for such possession in a manner consistent...