Skip to main content
· 11/1/1890

Graff v. People

Citations

  • 134 Ill. 380
  • 25 N.E. 563

Syllabus

<p>1. LARCENY—sale of property alleged to have been stolen—whether authorising a conviction. On the trial of one upon a charge of larceny it was shown that a lot of cattle had been stolen in a particular county named, and that the defendant had sold the same cattle in another county. The court, on behalf of the prosecution, instructed the jury, substantially, that if they believed the alleged larceny had been committed, and that the defendant afterward removed the cattle from the county in which they had been stolen, to another county, and there sold them, then he was guilty of the crime of larceny. The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that the cattle were delivered to him in the county in which they were charged to have been stolen, by another, with directions to make sale of them, which he did, in good faith and without knowledge that they had been stolen. The instruction was held to be erroneous, in that it authorized a verdict of guilty from the mere fact that the accused sold the property which had been stolen. All that was required by the instruction to authorize a verdict of guilty may have been proved, and yet the defendant be innocent of the crime for which he was being tried.</p> <p>2. Instruction—belief of the jury—to be predicated upon the evidence. An instruction in a criminal prosecution directed the jury, that if they believed certain specified facts they might convict. The instruction was considered objectionable in not limiting the belief to be entertained by the jury to that produced by the evidence given on the trial.</p> <p>3. Same—whether a faulty instruction is cured by others of aseries. Upon a prosecution under an indictment for larceny, an instruction was given on behalf of the People, directing the jury that if they should find certain facts they might convict; but it was considered that even if all that was required in the instruction to authorize a verdict of guilty, was proved, still the defendant may have been innocent of

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.