State v. Davis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. H. S. Kelley, Judge. 1. The evidence does not warrant the verdict for grand larceny. The only criminating evidénce against defendant was the mere possession of $5 worth of the stolen goods, seven or eight days after the theft.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. H. S. Kelley, Judge. 1. The evidence does not warrant the verdict for grand larceny. The only criminating evidénce against defendant was the mere possession of $5 worth of the stolen goods, seven or eight days after the theft. It is true defendant did not explain, or attempt to explain, this possession ; but the law is well settled and only goes to the extent that the recent possession of stolen goods, when unexplained, raises the presumption in law that the party thus in. possession is guilty of stealing the goods thus found in his possession ; but…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, J.
The defendant was indicted for burglary in the second degree and larceny, and was acquitted of the burglary, but convicted of the larceny, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The goods charged to have been stolen were alleged to have been taken from a store and to be of the value of $32. The two offenses were charged in the same count, under section 1301 of the Revised Statutes.
It is contended for the defendant that under the provisions of said section he could not be convicted of the larceny unless he was also convicted of the burglary. Tins point has…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. BarkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State v. PedigoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. DenisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- State v. OwensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- State v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- State v. NagelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896