Autman v. State

Citations

• 126 Miss. 629
• 89 So. 265

Syllabus

<p>1. Receiving Stolen Goods. Presumption of guilt held to arise from, unexplained possession of goods recently stolen.</p> <p>On the trial of a defendant charged with receiving stolen goods of the value of twenty-fiye dollars or more (grand larceny under the statute) and the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that goods of the value charged, recently stolen, were found in the possession of the defendant, and shows no satisfactory explanation of such possession, there arises a presumption' or inference of fact (not of law) that the defendant is guilty, and guilty as to the whole case — -the criminal receipt of the goods and of the grand larceny value as well; and under such proof the jury would be authorized to convict the defendant.</p> <p>2. Receiving Stolen Goods. Refusal to instruct as to possession of stolen goods held not error.</p> <p>In such a case it was not error in the trial court to refuse an instruction requested on behalf of the defendant, .that, even if the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was found in the possession of the stolen property of the value of twenty-five dollars or more, this was no evidence that he had received all of said goods at one time, and raised no legal presumption against the defendant' that all of said property was taken at one time.</p> <p>3. Receiving Stolen Goods. Refusal to instruct that■ there was no presumption that defendant in possession had received all the ■ property at one time held proper.</p> <p>In such a case it was not error in the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on request of the defendant that, even if the evidence showed that the defendant was found in possession of the recently stolen property amounting in value to twenty-five dollars or more, this did not raise any -sort of presumption that he received such property all at one time, and that therefore the jury should not indulge in such presumption.</p> <p>4. Receiving Stolen Goods. Refusal to instruct that there was