Territory of Arizona v. Casio

• Decision Date: 01 January 1884
• Citation: 1 Ariz. 485,2 P. 755
• Parties: TERRITORY OF ARIZONA v. VINCENTO CASIO
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

2 P. 755

1 Ariz. 485

TERRITORY OF ARIZONA v. VINCENTO CASIO

Supreme Court of Arizona

January 1, 1884

APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first judicial district, county of Pima, convicting the defendant of grand larceny. The opinion states the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

No appearance for the appellant.

Clark Churchill, Attorney General, for the Respondent.

Pinney J. French, C. J., concurred.

OPINION

By Court, PINNEY, J.--

The appellant was tried and convicted of grand larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of two years, from which judgment he appeals to this court, and assigns several grounds of error. Among others, the defendant asked the following instruction: "The mere possession of stolen property is a circumstance to be considered in determining the guilt of the possessor, but this circumstance is not of itself sufficient to authorize a conviction," which was refused by the court, and in the charge to the jury the following was given: "As a point of law, I charge you that possession of property recently stolen is sufficient to put the possessor upon his defense, and calls for satisfactory explanation; and it is for you, gentlemen, to say whether you are satisfied with the explanation of the defendant as to the manner in which he came into the possession of this ass. Its possession may be considered prima facie evidence that the possessor came into its possession unlawfully, unless he can show by undoubted proof that it came into his possession in a legitimate and lawful manner. It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether he has shown by that undoubted proof, or whether he has proved at all that he came into possession of this ass in a legitimate way. The burden of proof in every instance rests with the prisoner."

The facts in this case in brief are, that the complaining witness was the owner and possessor of an ass; that he had him running near his house; that he was stolen; and in about two months after he was stolen the defendant and appellant was in possession of the ass, claiming him as his own, and sold and delivered him to another party, in whose possession the real owner found him. This was in substance the proof on the part of the prosecution. The defendant was sworn, and testified that he traded a horse for this and another ass, and gave the man's name with whom he traded, but was unable to tell where the man was at the time of the trial. The charge of the court below on the question of possession of stolen property is couched in rather strong terms; but taking that charge together with the whole charge of the court, and the facts in proof in the case, we can not see that any such injustice has been done the defendant as would entitle him to another trial, provided the instruction given as to possession of property recently stolen is the better law. On this subject the reported cases are numerous. and some discord seems to exist. The larceny being shown, and the property found in the possession of the defendant soon enough after the theft to make it recent, is that a mere circumstance tending to show guilt, to be considered by the jury? or is it prima facie evidence that the possessor is the thief? And is the burden of proof then shifted? and must the defendant satisfactorily explain such possession?

In People v. Chambers, 18 Cal. 382, that court holds that such possession is a circumstance to be considered in determining the guilt of the possessor. In that case the larceny charged was stealing money and watches. And in that class of c...