Effler v. State

Citations

• 27 Del. 62
• 4 Boyce 62
• 85 A. 731
• 1913 Del. LEXIS 10

Syllabus

<p>1. . Criminal Law—Evidence—Other Offenses—Intent in General.</p> <p>Though as a general rule proof of distinct and independent offenses is not admissible, there are exceptions to rebut an inference of mistake, want of guilty knowledge, lawful purpose, or innocent intent that might otherwise spring from the evidence, and in some cases to meet a special defense.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law—Evidence—Other Offenses—Intent—• Conspiracy to Steal.</p> <p>Defendant was prosecuted for conspiracy to steal, in that he induced the prosecuting witness to purchase a dry goods business, witness to put in thirty-six hundred dollars cash, defendant and one of his associates five thousand dollars each, in cash, and that, while defendant was counting his money, men claiming to be detectives broke in, stated that it was counterfeit, took the money of witness, mixed it with that of defendant, and disappeared. The court admitted, to show defendant’s intent and design, testimony of a witness that three months afterwards he had been robbed of money in the same way by defendant and those whom the evidence tended to identify as the same associates. Held that, as the testimony of the other offense had no direct connection with the offense charged, its admission was reversible error</p> <p>3. Criminal Law—Evidence—Facts in Issue—Identity.</p> <p>To prove identity by defendant’s participation in another offense, there must be some connection between the two offenses; and it is not sufficient that they be similar offenses committed by him. Almost, if not quite, the same stringency is required to prove identity of party by this kind of evidence as is required to show system or plan.</p>