State v. Thomas, 7808
| Decision Date | 19 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 7808,7808 |
| Citation | 121 Utah 639,244 P.2d 653 |
| Parties | STATE, v. THOMAS. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Blaine V. Glasmann, Jr., Ogden, for appellant.
Glenn W. Adams, Dist. Atty., Ogden, Clinton D. Vernon, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Maughan, Asst't Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of burglary in the 3rd degree. The two questions posed which are of sufficient importance to notice herein are:
(1) Defendant's contention that the court should have ruled as a matter of law that he gave a 'satisfactory explanation' of his possession of recently stolen property; and
(2) His charge that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in threatening and coercing a defense witness.
We recognize the correctness of the defendant's assertion that mere possession of recently stolen property, if not coupled with other inculpatory or incriminating circumstances, would not justify submission of the case to the jury and would not be sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Kinsey, 77 Utah 348, 295 P. 247, and cases therein cited; State v. Nichols, 106 Utah 104, 145 P.2d 802. Conversely however, possession of articles recently stolen, when coupled with circumstances inconsistent with innocence, such as hiding or concealing them, or of making a false or improbable or unsatisfactory explanation of the possession, may be sufficient to connect the possessor with the offense of burglary and justify his conviction of it.
Concerning the crime of burglary, we have no statute such as Section 103-36-1, U.C.A.1943 which makes possession of recently stolen property, coupled with an unsatisfactory explanation thereof, prima facie evidence of guilt of larceny. However, where the larceny must have been committed in connection with a burglary the logic is the same in regard to burglary. In the case of Gransbury v. State, 64 Okl. Cr. 408, 81 P.2d 874, 876, the court said:
'Burglary is one degree removed from larceny; but when the facts in evidence warrant the finding of the larceny, and the surrounding circumstances are such as to show that the larceny could not have been committed without the burglarious entry, the evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of the burglary also.'
This Court has on prior occasions assumed such to be the law. State v. Kinsey, supra; State v. Nichols, supra; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah 39, 201 P. 1030. See also State v. Ebel, 92 Mont. 413, 15 P.2d 233; People v. Richmond, 127 Cal.App. 538, 16 P.2d 179; 12 C.J.S., Burglary Sec. 59, page 735.
According to the foregoing authorities, in order for the defendant's possession of recently stolen property to be sufficient to support a conviction of burglary, such possession must be recent, that is, not too remote in point of time from the crime, personal, exclusive, (although it may be joint if definite) distinct, conscious, and such possession must be coupled with a lack of a satisfactory explanation or other incriminating circumstances or conduct as hereinabove mentioned. And if these conditions are met a case sufficient to sustain a conviction is made out.
The evidence in this case satisfies the above requirements as to the defendant's possession of property recently stolen and which was positively identified as having been taken in the burglary. Defendant does not dispute this. His contention is that he made a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of his possession of the stolen goods, and asserts that, there being no other evidence of his guilt, there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury.
The 'satisfactory explanation' relied on by the defendant, apparently is his story given at the trial as to how he came into possession, that '* * * a friend came over and handed them to me and as soon as he handed them to me I was arrested by Officer Allen.' He also stated that he was arrested 'within two minutes' after he got them. This explanation, standing by itself, may be regarded as 'satisfactory.' However, it is to be measured in the light of all the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence in the case.
The State's evidence was that Mr. Edward Underwood's car was burglarized some time in the forenoon of August 15, 1950, and some tools were taken from it. Officer L. A. Jacobsen testified that at about noon on that day he observed the defendant Thomas coming out of the National Tavern; noticed a bulge under his coat; that as the defendant reached the middle of the sidewalk a wrench dropped from his coat; that he kept watch of the defendant and sent word for a prowl car; that it was from seven to ten minutes later when such car arrived.
Officer Wilson A. Allen testified that on a tip that the defendant was trying to dispose of some tools, he drove his prowl car to where the defendant was standing on the street; that he noticed the defendant pushing something up under his coat and further testified: Officer Allen asked the defendant where he got the tools and the first reply was that he got them at the place of a friend; then on further questioning, that he got them at the friend's mother's place. The officer checked the story and found that the defendant had not obtained them there.
It is thus plain to be seen that the defendant's explanation given at the trial is inconsistent, both with certain of his own prior statements, and with evidence given for the State. Whether he made a 'satisfactory explanation' of his possession was for the trial court to determine in the first instance. If the evidence was such that the court could reasonably conclude that the explanation was not satisfactory, then it was the court's duty to submit the case to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newell v. State
...explanation of possession is corroboration and whether he made a satisfactory explanation was for the trial court. State v. Thomas, 1952, 121 Utah 639, 244 P.2d 653. It lacks the ring of truth and was set out in all its detail in this opinion because its telling explains its Hand in hand wi......
-
State v. Solano
...circumstances or conduct. If these conditions are met a case sufficient to sustain a conviction is made out. See, State v. Thomas, 121 Utah 639, 244 P.2d 653; State v. Nichols, 106 Utah 104, 145 P.2d 802; State v. Ebel, 92 Mont. 413, 15 P.2d 233; 12 C.J.S. Burglary § 59, p. The defendant wa......
-
State v. Eastmond, 12789
...without the burglarious entry, the evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of the burglary also,' quoted in State v. Thomas, 121 Utah 639, 244 P.2d 653 (1952); see also cases cited therein.9 Ibid; and see also State v. Brooks, 101 Utah 584, 126 P.2d 1044 See footnote 3.8 Gransbury v. ......
-
State v. Smith
...if any, of the defendant which tend to show his guilt. See also State v. Clayton, 658 P.2d 621, 623 (Utah 1983); State v. Thomas, 121 Utah 639, 641, 244 P.2d 653, 654 (1952); State v. Kinsey, 77 Utah 348, 352, 295 P. 247, 249 (1931); Cosby v. Jones, 682 F.2d 1373 (11th Defendant's reliance ......