State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 04 April 1896 |
| Citation | 44 P. 554,4 Idaho 733 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMITH |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
PRACTICE-NEW TRIAL-EXCEPTIONS.-To entitle one to have the action of the lower court in granting, or refusing, a new trial in a criminal case, the record must show that an exception was taken to such ruling. The evidence in this case examined and held to sustain verdict.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.
Affirmed.
James W. Reid, for Appellant.
The contention by defendant is that the verdict was against law and evidence; that the only evidence against him is his possession of the property, of which he gives, not only a probable and reasonable explanation, but one which the state had the opportunity to contradict if not true. It is not incumbent on the defendant to establish an innocent connection with the stolen property by a preponderance of proof; if the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to guilty possession, the presumption is rebutted, and he is entitled to an acquittal. (12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 851, 852, and the numerous authorities there cited.) When the circumstances on which the verdict is based can be reasonably explained by some other hypothesis than that of the defendant's guilt or as perfectly consistent with the defendant's innocence, then a new trial should be granted. (State v Nesbit, ante, p. 548, 43 P. 66; Bayley v Eaton, 8 Cal. 159; People v. Ah Loy, 10 Cal. 301.)
Attorney General George M. Parsons, for the State.
There can be no doubt as a general proposition of law that the exclusive possession of goods recently stolen, is sufficient to put an accused person upon his defense. (3 Rice on Evidence, 733; People v. Kelly, 28 Cal. 423, 428, 429.) The possession of the property was circumstantial evidence tending to prove the guilt of defendant, and he should have rebutted this testimony. (State v. En, 10 Nev. 277, 281; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242, 249; State v. Haverly, ante, p. 484, 42 P. 506.)
The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny in the stealing of three head of cattle. Upon the trial the state proved ownership of the property in one Vernon, possession by defendant, and sale by defendant to one Bomberg, a butcher in the town of Genesee. Upon the examination of Bomberg it fell out that, upon the sale of the cattle to him by defendant the latter made to him (Bomberg) what pretended to be a bill of sale, in which he attempted to state from whom he got the cattle, and it was further proven, on examination of some of the state's witnesses, that defendant had made statements to them as to whom he procured the cattle from. The defense offered no testimony. It is claimed by appellant that it was incumbent upon the state, before a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baker
...P. 462; People v. Ah Hop, 1 Idaho 698; State v. Suttles, 13 Idaho 88, 88 P. 238; State v. Schieler, 4 Idaho 120, 37 P. 272; State v. Smith, 4 Idaho 733, 44 P. 554; State v. Rooke, 10 Idaho 388, 79 P. 82; State Peck, 14 Idaho 712, 95 P. 515; State v. Harris, 18 Idaho 620, 111 P. 406; State v......
-
State v. Chacon
... ... Cas. 1913A, 724, ... 117 P. 757; State v. McGinnis, 12 Idaho 336, 85 P ... 1089; State v. Rowe, 19 Idaho 416, 113 P. 461; ... State v. Rigley, 7 Idaho 292, 62 P. 679; State ... v. Marquardsen, 7 Idaho 352, 62 P. 1034; State v ... Suttles, 13 Idaho 88, 88 P. 238; State v ... Smith, 4 Idaho 733, 44 P. 554; State v. Peck, ... 14 Idaho 712, 95 P. 915; State v. Harris, 18 Idaho ... 620, 111 P. 406; State v. Hurst, 4 Idaho 345, 39 P ... 554; Schumacher v. Truman, 134 Cal. 430, 66 P. 590.) ... Statements ... made by the accused immediately after assault resulting in ... ...
-
State v. Black
...a new trial it is necessary that an exception be saved and incorporated in a bill of exceptions. (C. S., secs. 9008 and 9010; State v. Smith, 4 Idaho 733, 44 P. 554; State v. Maguire, 31 Idaho 24, 169 P. 175; v. Park, 31 Idaho 694, 175 P. 813; State v. Crawford, 32 Idaho 165, 179 P. 511; St......
-
State v. Kenworthy
... ... " ... The explanation that accused purchased the property from a ... third person ordinarily is entitled to little consideration ... unless corroborated, * * *" and is not a sufficient ... explanation unless corroborated in some degree. State v ... Davis, supra; State v. Smith, 4 Idaho 733, 44 P ... The ... instruction complained of based upon the undisputed fact that ... appellant was in possession of the property shortly after it ... was stolen was of itself evidence to be considered by the ... jury from which the guilt of appellant might be inferred ... ...