State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 04 October 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 239,111 Mo. 538
• Parties: STATE v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W. 239

111 Mo. 538

STATE v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

October 4, 1892.

LARCENY — INSTRUCTIONS — POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

1. On a trial for larceny, an instruction that if the jury believed that the "meat" found in defendant's possession was part of the "heifer alleged to have been stolen," and that such possession was unexplained, they could find him guilty, is error, since it either assumes that the heifer was stolen, or authorizes a presumption of guilt from the possession of property which is simply "alleged" to have been stolen.

2. An instruction that, "before you can convict on circumstantial evidence, it must be of such character and weight as to exclude all reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence," is too meager, and fails to state the rule in such a way as to make it a safe guide for the jury.

Appeal from circuit court, Cedar county; D. P. STRATTON, Judge.

William J. Taylor was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.

James Masters, for appellant. John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

1. The defendant was indicted and convicted of grand larceny, in the circuit court of Cedar county, at the October term, 1891. He assigns many reasons why he should have a new trial, but, without enumerating them, it is sufficient to say that his exceptions to the instructions of the court afford the only meritorious ground for impeaching the verdict upon the record here. The court, among other instructions, gave the following of its own motion: "(3) The court instructs the jury that recent possession of stolen property, unexplained, is presumptive evidence of guilty possession. Therefore, if you believe from the evidence that the meat found in the possession of the defendant was part of the heifer alleged to have been stolen, and that said possession has not been explained to your satisfaction by the evidence in the case, you are at liberty to infer that such possession was an unlawful and guilty possession. (4) Before you can convict on circumstantial evidence, it must be of such character and weight as to exclude all reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence." The evidence connecting defendant with the offense was principally circumstantial, and, had the jury been properly instructed, we would not have interfered with the verdict on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain it. The counsel for defendant does not controvert the general proposition that, where a larceny has been committed, the exclusive possession of the stolen goods recently thereafter by another person raises a presumption of the guilt of the person having such possession, and, unless such possession is explained in a manner consistent with his innocence, the presumption becomes conclusive of guilt. State v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608; State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 501. But he...