Skip to main content

Foster v. State

Citations

  • 52 Miss. 695

Syllabus

<p>1. Larceny : Recent possession of stolen goods. Presumption of guilt.</p> <p>The court review at length the various modifications and relaxations of the rule as to the presumption of guilt arising from “recent possession” of stolen goods, and announce as the well-settled doctrine in this state that the possession of stolen property recently after the theft is prima facie evidence that the possessor is guilty of the larceny. The possession raises a presumption which calls upon the accused for explanation, and casts upon him the burden of accounting for the possession. But, in order that the presumption may have this effect, it must be so recent after the larceny as to show that the accused could not well have come by the goods otherwise than by stealing them. This presumption may be rebutted by showing an honest acquisition of the goods, or may be overcome by all the attending circumstances disclosed in the testimony.</p> <p>2. Same : Same.</p> <p>In arriving at a conclusion the jury should apply to the solution of the problem the common experience and observations of life, and it is for them to say whether they are satisfied, from all the attending circumstances and other facts in evidence, that the possession was honest or felonious. The conduct of the accused at the time he was found in possession, his explanation of how he came by the goods, his subsequent conduct, his good character, are all legitimate subjects of proof, and will seldom fail to enable the jury to draw a ■correct conclusion.</p> <p>3. Sam®: Newly discovered evidence.</p> <p>An affidavit of the accused was filed with the motion for a new trial, stating that since the trial he had discovered evidence which would enable him to prove that the stolen property did not belong to the owner, as laid in the indictment, but was the property of another. Held, that this evidence did not or could not relieve the accused of the crime of larceny, and that if the fact, as stated, had been proved on the trial,

Judges: Simrall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 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.