Conkwright v. People

Citations

• 35 Ill. 204

Syllabus

<p>Criminal evidence—possession of stolen property. The possession of property soon after it was stolen, is not, of itself, prima facie evidence that it was stolen by the party in whose possession it was found.</p> <p>2. Possession of stolen property by a person soon after the theft, may be the strongest character of evidence of his guilt, when considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, while under different circumstances, it might be slight, if even any, evidence of guilt. In such a case, everything connected with the possession must be considered, such as its proximity to the larceny; whether the property was concealed; whether the party admitted or denied the possession; whether other persons had access to the place where it was found; the demeanor of the accused, and his good character. These circumstances, when in evidence ■before the jury, are proper to be considered by them.</p> <p>3. Same—proof of previous good character. The previous character of the accused may, in such a case, if shown to be good, repel all presumption of guilt.</p> <p>4. Instructions —facts should not he assumed. An instruction which assumes that to be a fact which is for the jury to determine, is erroneous.</p> <p>5. Burden op proop, in criminal trials. It is error to instruct a jury on the trial of a party upon the charge of larceny, that if the stolen property was found in his possession, the burden of proving the possession to have been honest is thrown upon the accused. It makes no difference by whom the proof is made, or how it shall appear, so his possession is shown to be honest. Such an instruction might mislead the jury to believe that the innocence of the accused must be established by his own witnesses, and that a reasonable doubt would not be sufficient to acquit.</p>