Faunce v. People

Citations

• 51 Ill. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Witness—competency—conviction of crime. It can not be said that a person has been convicted of a crime, so as to render him incapable of giving testimony, within the meaning of section 235 of the criminal code, until there has been a judgment rendered on the verdict of guilty.</p> <p>2. Our statute has not changed the rule at the common law. It, like the common law, refers to the conviction imposed by the law; and not until judgment is rendered on a verdict of guilty, is the accused convicted by the law, and disqualified from testifying as a witness.</p> <p>3. Indictment—¿for receiving stolen property., S and F were indicted jointly for receiving stolen property. The proof showed, that the accused were partners in business; that soon after the property was stolen, it was taken, by the thief, to the place of business of the accused, for sale. F being absent at the time, S declined to purchase, until F returned; the thief left the property with S, and a few hours later again called and found F in, who informed the thief that the detectives were after him, but if he would keep still, and come around in the morning, he would purchase the property if the detectives did not interfere; that police officers notified F of the larceny, and described the goods, but F denied all knowledge of them, and that afterwards, a police officer, accompanied by the thief, called upon F and demanded the property, who, after feigning ignorance as to the whereabouts of the property, reached under the counter and handed it over to the officer. Hdd, that this evidence was sufficient to connect F with the concealment of the property, and fully warranted the conclusion, that he had the property under his control, and had received it, knowing it-to have been stolen.</p> <p>4. That this evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction of the accused, for a joint receipt of the property, as charged in the indictment.</p>