State v. North
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from 'St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. James-C. Nórmele, Judge. The presumption arising from possession of recently stolen property can be rebutted otherwise than by accounting for such possession. The defence made by appellant was alibi. Absence from the scene of the crime renders the commission of it impossible, but does not explain the possession of the fruits of the crime.
Read the full summary
Appeal from 'St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. James-C. Nórmele, Judge. The presumption arising from possession of recently stolen property can be rebutted otherwise than by accounting for such possession. The defence made by appellant was alibi. Absence from the scene of the crime renders the commission of it impossible, but does not explain the possession of the fruits of the crime. The limitation placed, upon the methods of rebutting the presumption annulled appellant’s defence, and was clearly erroneous. State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463 ; State •». Bobbins, 65 Mo.' 443; State v. Williams, 54 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, C. J.
Defendant was indicted in the criminal court of the city of St. Louis and charged with burglary and larceny, and on trial was convicted of both burglary and larceny and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that, on the same day the offence charged was committed, *617and the day after it was committed, defendant was found in possession of goods stolen at the time the burglary was committed, and that he admitted he took them. The evidence of defendant himself and that of another witness tended to show an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- State v. SidneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. CrookeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908