Williams v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Writing for the Court: HOLCOMB
• Citation: 83 N.W. 681,60 Neb. 526
• Parties: WILLIAMS ET AL. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 19 September 1900

60 Neb. 526
83 N.W. 681

WILLIAMS ET AL.
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Sept. 19, 1900.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where, in an action against a person for burglary with intent to steal and also the larceny of goods, the court, in instructing the jury, in defining what constitutes the offense of burglary, omits an essential element, and the jury return a verdict of not guilty as to the charge of burglary, held, that such omission is error without prejudice.

2. Where the statute defining grand and petit larceny is incorporated in an instruction to the jury defining the essential elements of the crime, such instruction is not open to the objection that it does not state the property stolen must be of some value.

3. Under the doctrine announced and held in this state, no presumption of guilt arises from the mere possession of stolen property. The inference to be drawn from such fact is alone for the jury, when weighed in connection with all the evidence adduced on the trial.

4. The presumption of innocence attends the accused through every step of the trial, until the jury finds his guilt established under the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. The burden of proof in a criminal action does not shift to the accused.

6. The force and effect to be given the fact of possession of stolen property recently after the theft, and the sufficiency or insufficiency of such evidence, are solely for the jury, and it is improper for the court to instruct the jury as to the effect to be given, or the sufficiency of, the evidence, in whole or in part.

7. Instruction set forth in the opinion held to have been erroneously given.

Error to district court, Hitchcock county; Norris, Judge.

John Williams and others were indicted for burglary and larceny, and were found guilty of larceny, and bring error. Reversed.

[83 N.W. 681]

A. C. Yocum, J. W. James, and W. F. Button, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for the State.

HOLCOMB, J.

Defendants were informed against for burglary by breaking into and entering a store building, and the larceny of certain goods contained in said store building. On the trial, by the verdict of a jury, they were acquitted of the charge of burglary, and found guilty of larceny of property of the value of $146, as charged in the information. Objections are made to certain instructions given by the court on its own motion. It is claimed, in the first place, that the court omitted to instruct the jury that, where burglary is committed with intent to steal, the property must be of some value, and likewise, in the instruction as to larceny, the jury were not told that the property must be of some value.

As to the instruction excepted to relating to burglary, accepting counsel's position to be correct, we think, in view of the jury's verdict upon the charge of burglary, that it was, if erroneous, without prejudice. No bill of exceptions was preserved, and an instruction of the nature given was...