State v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 20 April 1918
• Court: Court of General Sessions of Delaware
• Parties: STATE v. HARFORD ROBINSON and WALTER BEDDLE

103 A. 657

30 Del. 106

STATE v. HARFORD ROBINSON and WALTER BEDDLE

Court of General Sessions of Delaware, Kent County

April 20, 1918

Court of General Sessions, Kent County, April Term, 1918.

INDICTMENT No. 7, April Term, 1918.

Harford Robinson and Walter Beddle were indicted for the larceny of corn, husked and left in the open field of William Legg, the tenant in possession, who shared with his landlord in the crops. Beddle pleaded guilty. Verdict of not guilty for Robinson.

The corn was stolen in the night time, and there was evidence that the team used in hauling the corn from the field was tracked to the home of the accused the following morning.

Verdict, not guilty.

James M. Satterfield, Deputy Attorney General, for the state.

Thomas C. Frame, Jr., for the accused.

PENNEWILL C. J., and BOYCE, J., sitting.

OPINION

PENNEWILL, C. J., charged the jury in part:

The effect of the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses are entirely for the jury, and the court are not permitted to comment thereon.

There are, however, a few principles of law applicable to the facts of this case, and with respect to them the court will charge you briefly.

1. Circumstantial evidence, to warrant a verdict of guilty must be entirely satisfactory, and of such significance consistency and force as to produce conviction in the minds of the jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. While a jury may convict upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, the better rule is, that conviction should not be had unless such testimony is corroborated in some material part by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.

But if the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, after carefully considering all the evidence, that the accused is guilty they should not hesitate to convict even though the evidence is in whole or in part circumstantial, and one of the witnesses for the state was an accomplice, provided his testimony is corroborated in some material part by other evidence.

3. Where personal property that has been recently stolen is found in the possession of a person, that person is presumed to be the thief, and guilty of the larceny, unless he makes a satisfactory explanation of such possession and convinces the jury that it is a lawful one.

4. The indictment in this case charges that the corn alleged to have been stolen was the property of William Legg, but it is not...