Skip to main content

Davis v. State

Citations

  • 50 Miss. 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Larceny — Presumption Arising erom Recent Possession oe Stolen Goods. — No definite length, of time, after loss of goods and before possession. shown, in the accused, seems to be settled, as raising a presumption of guilt. Where the goods are bulky or inconvenient of transmission, or unlikely to he transferred, it seems that a greater lapse of time is allowed to raise the presumption than where they are light or easily passed from hand to hand, and likely to he passed, because in the one 'case, the goods may not have passed through many hands, and the proof to justify the possession may, therefore, he more simple and easy; hut in the latter case, the goods may, very probably, have come to the accused through many persons, and their transit, from the smallness of their nature and value, he much more difificut to he proved. Roscoe Cr. Ev., 18; 8 Greenleaf Ev., § 33.</p> <p>3. Presumption — Strong or Weak, According to the Pacts and Circumstances, and the Lapse oe Time. — The possession must he recent after the loss, in order to impute guilt; and this presumption is founded on the manifest reason that, -where goods have been taken from, one person, and are quickly thereafter found in the possession of another, there is a stro..g probability that they were taken by the latter. This probability is stronger or weaker in proportion to the period intervening between the taking and the finding, or it may be entirely removed by the lapse of such time, as to render it not improbable that the goods may have been taken by another and passed to the accused, and thus wholly destroy the presumption.</p> <p>3. Same — Satisfactory Account of Possession. — The general rule is undoubtedly well settled, that the possession by a party, of stolen goods, shortly after their loss by the owner, is presumptive evidence of guilt, which, however, maybe explained, and if the party in whose possession they are found fails satisfactorily to account for his possession, the presumption of guil

Judges: Tarbell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.