Waters v. People of State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1882
• Citation: 1882 WL 10449,104 Ill. 544
• Parties: STERLING F. WATERSv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

104 Ill. 544

1882 WL 10449 (Ill.)

STERLING F. WATERS

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Nov. 20, 1882.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. HALEY & O'DONNELL, for the plaintiff in error:

A verdict of guilty as charged in a count of an indictment, means guilty of the larceny of all the property described in such count. 2 Archbold's Criminal Pr. and Pl. 373, and note.

If defendant was not guilty of the larceny of the horse, then this verdict is unsupported, without regard to the balance of the goods. Even though guilty of outrageous conduct in obtaining possession of the horse,--even though guilty of a malicious trespass in removing and turning it loose,--still, unless the evidence shows larceny beyond all reasonable doubt, the conviction can not stand. Stuart v. People, 73 Ill. 20; Phelps v. People, 55 Id. 334; McCourt v. People, 64 N. Y. 583; Phillips & Strong's case, 2 East, P. C. 662; Smith v. Schultz, 1 Scam. 490; Smith v. Donnelly, 66 Ill. 464; Rex v. Crump, 1 Carr. & Paine, 656.

The instruction in respect to the possession of stolen property, stating it to be sufficient evidence of guilt unless defendant's possession is satisfactorily explained by the evidence, is erroneous. The evidence need only rebut the presumption to such an extent as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. The defendant is not required to establish his innocence to the satisfaction of the jury, when once a prima facie case is made out against him. Comfort v. People, 54 Ill. 404; Hopps v. People, 31 Id. 385; Chase v. People, 40 Id. 350.

The punishment for the larceny of a horse is different from that of a buggy and harness, and being so, a count charging both offences is bad for duplicity. Barton v. State, 18 Ohio, 221; Commonwealth v. Symonds, 2 Mass. 162; Reed v. People, 1 Parker's Cr. R. 481; 1 Archbold's Criminal Pl. 49, 55, 56.

Mr. JAMES MCCARTNEY, Attorney General, for the People:

It is not necessary to prove the larceny of all the articles alleged to have been stolen. Archbold's Criminal Pl. (7th ed.) 161; 3 Chitty's Criminal Law, 946.

The exclusive possession of the whole or some part of property recently after the theft, is sufficient, when standing alone, to cast upon the party having such possession the burden of explaining how he came by it. 2 Russell on Crimes, 337; Phillips on Evidence, (7th ed.) 168; Knickerbocker v. People, 43 N. Y. 177; State v. Brady, 27 Iowa, 126; State v. Creson, 38 Mo. 372; State v. Turner, 65 N. C. 592; State v. Williams, 9 Ired. 140. Two distinct crimes may be joined in one count, where one and the same act constitutes both crimes. Ruth v. People, 99 Ill. 185; 1 Wharton's Criminal Law, sec. 931; Oleson v. State, 20 Wis. 58.

A count in an indictment charging that the defendant broke and entered a shop with intent to commit a larceny, and did then and there commit a larceny, is not bad for duplicity. Commonwealth v. Tuck, 20 Pick. 356; Commonwealth v. Hope, 22 Id. 1; State v. Ayer, 23 N. H. 301; Davis v. State, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 77.

The Supreme Court of Vermont has passed upon a case identical with the one at bar, and there held that a single count in an indictment charging the larceny of a horse, wagon and harness, was not bad for duplicity. State v. Cameron, 40 Vt. 555.

This court has before sustained a count charging the larceny of horses and harness, and no reason appears for overruling the decision. Bennett et al. v. People, 96 Ill. 602.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the Will circuit court for larceny. The first count charges him with the larceny of one horse, the property of one Barnes. The second count charges him with the larceny of one horse, one buggy and one harness, the property of the same person. On a trial the jury found plaintiff in error guilty as charged in the second count in the indictment, and fixed his term in the penitentiary at four years. It is urged that the indictment is bad, and the court erred in overruling a motion to quash. Also that the evidence fails to support the verdict, and the instructions for the People are erroneous. For these reasons a reversal is asked.

It is urged that the second count is double, as it charges the stealing of a horse, and a buggy and harness; that horse stealing constitutes a distinct offence, and the stealing of a buggy or a harness another and different offence; that the punishment for horse stealing is confinement in the penitentiary not less than three nor more than twenty years, whilst the punishment for grand larceny of other property is fixed at not less than one year nor more than ten years. It is therefore claimed that the stealing of a horse is, under the statute, a different and distinct crime from the stealing of a buggy or a harness; that they are separate offences, created by different sections of the statute, which impose different degrees of punishment, and for that reason the count charges two separate and distinct crimes, and is bad because of duplicity, and...