United States v. Candler

• Decision Date: 14 November 1894
• Citation: 65 F. 308
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CANDLER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

65 F. 308

UNITED STATES v. CANDLER.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina.

November 14, 1894

Syllabus by the Court

Coin or bank notes found in the possession of a defendant soon after a larceny has been committed must be clearly identified as the property stolen, in order to give rise to a legal presumption of guilt; mere general resemblance in kind and amount is only a fact which the jury may consider, in connection with other proved facts, as some evidence of guilt, State v. James 72 N.C. 482; State v Freeman, 89 N.C. 469.

In a case founded entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the jury must consider all the independent coincident facts and circumstances shows in evidence and find that they are consistent with each other and point to the guilt of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, before a verdict of guilty can be properly rendered. U.S. v. Searcey, 26 F. 435.

A jury may well consider the improbability of positive statements made by an unimpeached witness, when there are facts and circumstances in evidence tending to lessen the probability that such testimony is true. Quock Ting v. U.S., 11 Sup.Ct. 733, 851, 140 U.S. 417.

When the prosecution relies upon facts and circumstances as making out a prima facie case of guilt, the district attorney may properly comment upon the fact that defendant had a witness present in court who was not introduced, if it appears in evidence that such witness had probable knowledge of the truth of falsity of the facts and circumstances relied upon to make out such prima facie case. Graves v. U.S., 14 Sup.Ct. 40, 150 U.S. 118; Goodman v. Sapp, 9 S.E 483, 102 N.C. 477.

R. B. Glenn, Dist. Atty., and D. A. Covington, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States.

V. S. Lusk, S. J. Pemberton, and J. M. Gudger, for defendant.

DICK District Judge (charging jury).

This trial has evidently excited much public interest. The evidence and the circumstances attending the trial are well calculated to give rise to such public interest. The defendant is a boy 15 years of age, and he was attended during the trial by his father, mother, sister, and other relatives, who are persons of high character in the community. The case has been well and ably managed by counsel on both sides, in the examination of the witnesses, and in their arguments before you,-- and it is one that requires your careful and impartial consideration. That entry was made into the post office at the time stated, and that money and stamps were taken therefrom, are facts which are not controverted. The evidence shows only two ways by which entry into the post office could have been made,-- by a key, or by the transom above the back door of the building. Miss Sherrill, the postmistress, and her brother who acted as her assistant, were the only persons who had possession of the key. She testified that on the evening before the night when the post office was robbed she examined her money drawer, and found that she had a $10 gold coin, a $5 bank bill, and some change in silver and coppers, amounting in all to about $25. She also had a number of 10-cent and 2-cent postage stamps. At 6 o'clock in the evening she locked the door, and carried the key to her home, and placed it in a trunk in her mother's room. On the next morning her brother went to the post office, and soon came back, and informed her that the office had been robbed. She found the drawer out on the floor, with lock broken, and her money gone, and some of the 10-cent stamps. On the inside of the room a chair had been placed close to the door. On the outside an old window shutter was leaning against the door, which had marks of dirt made by footsteps. The three panes of glass had been taken from the transom, and placed above unbroken. The size of the panes of glass was about 10 or 12 inches. The door was about 3 feet wide, and she thought that the defendant could have easily passed through the transom. She saw the defendant that night at church about 9 o'clock, and he went home with her brother, and remained all night, and went off the next morning before she could see him. The defendant had never stayed at her mother's house before that time. Her testimony was substantially sustained by the testimony of her brother. He further said that defendant, on the morning after the robbery, went with him on his way to the post office, but turned aside to go to an unfinished church building close by. He also said that at the back door of the post office he found several tracks made by a No. 6 shoe, and he placed his own foot in the track, and there was a good fit. He also gave his opinion as to the size of the transom, and thought that defendant could have passed through. There is no evidence, ascertained by actual measurement, as to the exact size of the transom, and no experiment was made to find whether a 15-year old boy could have passed through the opening.

As this indictment is founded entirely upon circumstantial evidence, you should consider every attendant circumstance calculated to throw light upon the subject of investigation, and determine whether the independent coincident facts and circumstances shown in evidence are consistent with each other, and point to guilt of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Had the defendant any knowledge of things in the post office? I remember no direct and specific evidence upon that point. As to the tracks on the outside, there is no direct evidence tending to show that defendant made them. His foot was not measured, and the evidence clearly shows that he usually wore No. 7 shoes. The evidence shows that on the day after the robbery the defendant was arrested at Murphy and on search he was found in possession of a $10 gold piece and some silver change and coppers, amounting to about $25 but no $5 bank bill or stamps. If any of the coin had been marked so that it could have been strictly identified as the property stolen, such fact would have given rise to a strong presumption of guilt. As the coin found upon his person was like the ordinary circulating currency of the country, incapable of strict identity, no presumption of law arises, but the fact is a circumstance which may be considered in connection with other circumstances as evidence of guilt. The entry was made on the night of 2d April, while religious services were being conducted at a church close by, and in full view of the back door of the post office, and there was a large crowd inside and outside of the church. There is evidence that defendant was at the church, and talked with Henry Connor at the door, and asked him to go down town with him. Another witness testified that defendant came partly into the door of the church, looked around, and went out, and was absent half an hour, and then returned, and remained until the services were ended. It was insisted by counsel for defense that the entry could not have been made at that time, for the light which the evidence shows was used by the robber would have been clearly visible to the large crowd attending the church. Upon this point you may consider whether a light seen in the post office at that early hour in the night would have been calculated to excite any surprise in the persons seeing it.

It is further insisted by counsel for defendant that, if defendant was the robber, he would not have gone to the home of the postmistress with her brother, and remained all night with the money on his person. The evidence shows that on the next morning the defendant left young Sherrill, and went into the unfinished church, and he assigned no reason for so...