People v. Perini

Citations

• 94 Cal. 573
• 29 P. 1027
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 731

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Receiving Stolen Goods — Double Punishment—Nature of Offense. — Section 496 of the Penal Code, which provides for the punishment of a defendant convicted of receiving stolen goods “by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both,” does not authorize a double punishment, and violates no provision of the constitution. The offense is a felony or misdemeanor according to the nature of the judgment.</p> <p>Id. — Power of Legislature. — The power to define offenses and fix penalties therefor rests entirely with the legislature.</p> <p>Id. — Larceny by Assistant Foreman of Warehouse — Purchase of Stolen Goods. — An assistant foreman of a warehouse, who has authority to deliver property stored in the warehouse upon-proper orders presented to him, but who has no authority to sell any of the property, is guilty of larceny in selling the property, and the buyer of such property, knowing the same to have been stolen, is guilty of the crime of receiving stolen goods.</p> <p>Id. — Receiving Embezzled Goods. — Even if it be conceded that the act of the assistant foreman in selling the property in the warehouse was technically embezzlement, the parties buying the property from him would still be guilty of the crime of receiving stolen goods.</p> <p>Id.—Reasonable Doubt — Guilty Intent — Burden of Proof—Error in Instruction. — An instruction to the jury in a criminal action, that “ the effect of the statutory rules of evidence is, that when the doing of an act which, if coupled with a guilty intent, would be a violation of the law is proven, the burden of proving the act to have been done without intent, to the extent of creating a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt upon the whole case, is, in most cases, thrown' upon the accused, ” is erroneous.</p>