State v. Sidney
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Citation | 74 Mo. 390 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. SIDNEY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
Robert W. Goode for respondent.
The defendant was indicted for burglary and larceny, and on trial had, was convicted of both offenses. Evidence on the part of the prosecution disclosed that on the night of February 2nd, 1880, the house of Louis Schlosstein, in the city of St. Louis, was burglariously entered and a considerable amount of jewelry, etc., taken therefrom. On February 4th, two days after the occurrence just mentioned, the defendant, in company with two others, called upon one Levi Bonné, in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, and sold him the stolen goods, which at the time were in defendant's possession. There was testimony also of an alibi, the defendant claiming and testifying that he had not been in St. Louis for more than three years prior to the property being taken--nor nearer to St. Louis during that time than Indianapolis. There was testimony also of the contrary effect, consisting of statements alleged to have been made by defendant to certain officers, showing that he was in St. Louis but a short time before the time when the conversation took place, and apparently shows that defendant was in St. Louis on the day the crime charged was done. This, in brief, was the evidence.
Among other merely formal instructions, the trial court gave the following: “But, on the other hand, where property has been stolen, and recently thereafter the same property, or any part thereof, is found in the possession of another, such person is presumed to be the thief, and if he fails to account for his possession of such property, in a manner consistent with his innocence, this presumption becomes conclusive against him; and in such cases the law further presumes that the thief resorted to and made use of all the means necessary to gain access to and possession of such stolen property.”
In the recent case of State v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608, we had occasion to examine the doctrine relative to the possession of goods recently stolen, and the presumption arising from such possession. We still adhere to the doctrine announced in that case and hold it applicable here, so far as it goes, and were the element of the recent possession of stolen property the only element in this case, we should not hesitate to approve the action of the trial court. In the case just cited, a similar instruction met with our approval, but there we distinctly said: “If there really had been evidence of good character introduced, the instruction would not have been sufficiently comprehensive, because good character would neither account for nor explain the possession of the property recently stolen, though it would certainly have a very important bearing in rebutting the presumption of guilt consequent on such possession.” In this case, as in that, there was no testimony as to good character, but there was testimony of equivalent force and potency; testimony of an alibi; testimony which tended to rebut the accusation; testimony, which, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Taylor
...107 Mo. 147, 17 S.W. 666; State v. Henson, 106 Mo. 66, 16 S.W. 285; State v. Moxley, 102 Mo. 374, 14 S.W. 969. But this court, in State v. Sidney, 74 Mo. 390, that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury upon the consideration to be given an alibi, was reversible error of itself......
-
State v. Baker
...excludes from the consideration of the jury the defense of alibi. State v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 321; State v. North, 95 Mo. 615; State v. Sidney, 74 Mo. 390. This last error is not cured by the giving of general instruction on alibi. That would simply present a case of conflicting instructions.......
-
The State v. Miller
... ... defendant to an acquittal, if they have a reasonable doubt of ... the presence of the defendant at the time and place, but a ... defense which does not explain possession and a defense under ... which no explanation of possession is called for. State ... v. Sidney, 74 Mo. 390; State v. North, 95 Mo ... 615; State v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 322; State v ... Good, 132 Mo. 125; State v. Wright, 199 Mo ... 161; State v. Helton, 234 Mo. 564; State v ... Stubblefield, 239 Mo. Mo. 526; State v. Pate, ... 268 Mo. 442; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 583; ... ...
-
the State v. Harry Levy, Alias, Etc.
... ... in giving instruction number three. Instruction number three, ... on the subject of a presumption raised on account of the ... possession of property recently stolen, was proper in form ... and in accordance with the decisions of this State. State ... v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608; State v. Sidney, 74 Mo ... 390; State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 624; State v ... North, 95 Mo. 615; State v. Bryant, 134 Mo ... 249; State v. Walker, 194 Mo. 253; State v ... James, 194 Mo. 277; State v. Hammons, 226 Mo ... 604. The evidence sufficiently proves that appellant had ... possession of property that ... ...