Turner v. The State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,417 |
| Citation | 1 N.E. 869,102 Ind. 425 |
| Parties | Turner v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Noble Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
F Prickett, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, and W. B. Hord, for the State.
The indictment upon which the appellant was convicted charges him with stealing "one book, of the value of six dollars the personal property of Levi W. Welker." We think that the description of the property stolen is sufficient. The case of State v. Logan, 1 Mo. 532, is exactly in point, and the principle upon which the decision rests is decided in many cases. State v. King, 31 La.Ann. 179; State v. Carter, 33 La. Ann. 1214; 2 Bishop Crim. Proc., section 700, and authorities cited. The books are full of cases in which it was held that such descriptions as "one horse," "one cow," "one hog," are sufficient, and there is no reason why a different rule should apply here.
The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf, and in the course of his testimony stated that he was a book agent, representing a Philadelphia firm; that when he left Fort Wayne for Auburn, he had in his possession several books, among others Jones on Chattel Mortgages; that he had purchased it at Philadelphia, and he made some statements as to his business at Auburn. The State was permitted, in giving evidence in reply, to prove by Mr. Peterson that the book was stolen from him, and that the one hundredth page containing his name was torn out. The appellant complains of the admission of this testimony. The testimony objected to contradicted the appellant upon a material point, or rather upon two material points, for it tended very strongly to show that his account of the place and manner in which he got the book alleged to have been stolen was not true, and also flatly contradicted his statement as to where he obtained Jones on Chattel Mortgages. It is an elementary principle of criminal law that the fabrication of evidence is a criminative circumstance tending to establish guilt, and this evidence very strongly tended to show that Turner's statement as to how and where he procured the books found in his possession, including the stolen one, was fabricated. The testimony went to the whole theory upon which he attempted to account for his possession of the books, and it was unquestionably competent for the State to show that his statements were false and his theory without foundation. Where the specific property charged to be stolen is found in the possession of the accused, in connection with other property, and the possession of the property is attempted to be accounted for, it is proper for the State to show that the account given was untrue. The authorities, indeed, go farther, for it is held that in cases of larceny it is competent to show the possession of other stolen property. Webb v. State, 8 Tex.App. 115; 3 Greenl. Ev., section 31.
The general rule is that one crime can not be proved by establishing another, but to this general rule there are many exceptions. A notable exception is where the two crimes are connected,...
To continue reading
Request your trial