State v. Beeman

Citations

• 51 Wash. 557
• 99 P. 756
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1230

Syllabus

<p>Burglary — Nature oe Offense — Breaking. Tbe gist of burglary is the breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.</p> <p>Same — Evidence. Tbe mere possession of stolen property is not prima facie evidence of tbe breaking and entering, but a circumstance to be considered by tbe jury.</p> <p>Burglary — Evidence—Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of burglary, where it appears that tbe bouse was broken open, and a feather bed stolen; that tbe property was found in tbe possession of the defendant, tbe feathers removed from tbe tick, tbe tick concealed, and that tbe defendant was seen in tbe vicinity of tbe bouse about tbe time of tbe burglary and tracks evidently made by bis cart led to and from tbe bouse, although possession of tbe stolen property would not alone be prima facie proof of tbe burglary.</p> <p>Criminal Law — New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence. Tbe general rule that a new trial will not be granted, for newly discovered evidence to impeach a witness, applies in a prosecution for burglary where tbe newly discovered evidence merely tended to contradict tbe owner’s identification of tbe property, and tbe owner did not assume to positively identify it, identification having been made by another witness.</p> <p>Same. A new trial will not be granted in a criminal case to secure tbe evidence of a witness now a resident in tbe East, when it is only shown that counsel believe be will be present at tbe new trial; nor when bis evidence would be only cumulative.</p>