State v. Weaver
Decision Date | 09 December 1889 |
Citation | 10 S.E. 486,104 N.C. 758 |
Parties | STATE v. WEAVER. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Indictment for larceny, tried at September term, 1889, of Granville superior court, before BYNUM, Judge.
The defendant was charged with stealing "one pair of shoes one pound of snuff, one pair of suspenders, one shirt, one yard of cloth, of the value of one dollar, of the goods chattels, and money of Charles F. Wheeler," and, in a second count, with receiving the same articles, knowing them to have been theretofore stolen. One Teasley, who, together with three others was indicted with Weaver, and as to whom the solicitor entered a nolle prosequi, testified that he went to the store of C. F. Wheeler, and watched while the defendant, Weaver, and others entered and filled a number of sacks with goods, taking each a sack, and conveying goods to a party across the road, whom the witness did not know. Wheeler, the prosecutor, testified that on the night of the 18th of July, 1888, his storehouse in Granville county was broken into, and his goods, of the value of more than $300 were stolen. Among the articles were those mentioned in the indictment, and a lot of coffee, some under-shirts, and several pairs of pants. The defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony in relation to the pants because they were not among the articles mentioned in the indictment, and excepted to the order of the court overruling his objection. The prosecutor then testified further as follows: The house was entered by taking off the hinges of the window. From information received, a search-warrant was issued, and at the house of defendant Teasley were some of his shoes, cloth, and coffee; at defendant Timberlake's, shoes, shirts, and cloth; at defendant Crabtree's, snuff and coffee; and at defendant Weaver's, a pair of pants and an under-shirt. This witness testified further as follows: The defendant objected and excepted whenever the pants were mentioned by the witness, and also when they were exhibited to the jury. Verdict of guilty, judgment, and appeal.
On trial for larceny the state may show that other articles lost at the time of the alleged theft were found in defendant's possession, together with those mentioned in the indictment.
Batchelor & Devereux, for appellant.
The Attorney General and Graham & Winston, for the State.
AVERY J., (after stating the facts as above.)
It is an established rule of evidence that "when, on a trial for larceny, identity is in question, testimony is admissible to show that other property, which had been stolen at the same time, was also in the possession of the defendant when he had in possession on the property charged in the indictment." Whart. Crim. Law, § 650. This principle is sustained by reason as well as authority. When several articles are taken at one time, and "the transaction is set in motion by a single impulse, and operated upon by a single, unintermittent force, it forms a continuous act, and hence must be treated as one larceny, not susceptible of being broken up in a series of offenses, no matter how long a time the act may occupy." 2 Whart. Crim. Law, § 1817. So that the testimony does not tend to prove a different, but the same, offense. The plea of former acquittal or conviction on this indictment would unquestionably be good as a bar upon the trial of another charge against the defendant for larceny of the pants, the property of the prosecutor, upon offering proof, either that they were taken at the same time when the articles charged in this case were taken, or upon showing that testimony was offered for the state, on the trial of this indictment, tending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial