State v. Magoon
Supreme Court of Vermont
Complaint was larceny. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the June term, 1895, Orange County, Rowell, J., presiding. Verdict, guilty, and sentence on verdict. Thé respondent excepts. The respondent was tried for the larceny of eleven hens belonging to one Dickenson and the evidence upon.the part of the state tended to show that these hens were stolen April 22, 1895, at Topsham and were sold to one Pitkin in Barre,. April 24th.
Read the full summary
Complaint was larceny. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the June term, 1895, Orange County, Rowell, J., presiding. Verdict, guilty, and sentence on verdict. Thé respondent excepts. The respondent was tried for the larceny of eleven hens belonging to one Dickenson and the evidence upon.the part of the state tended to show that these hens were stolen April 22, 1895, at Topsham and were sold to one Pitkin in Barre,. April 24th. The respondent’s evidence tended to show that the hens he sold Pitkin, April 24, were the property of one Daniel Magoon and were killed upon the morning of that day.…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The interview with Pitkin, in which the respondent failed to reply to a remark suggestive of his guilt, was legitimate, evidence. It is properly contended that mere silence affords no ground for an unfavorable inference, unless the circumstances are such as to call for a reply. Vail v. Strong, 10 Vt. 457, 463. But wethink the circumstances of this interview were such that the respondent was called upon to reply. The situation did not leave himi at liberty to treat the remark as idle or impertinent. The conversation was with one to wrhom he was then offering-chickens for sale, and to whom he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vail v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. WattsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Girard Et Ux. v. Vt. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- State v. ManleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- State v. MariniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
- State v. MungeonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906