State v. Freedman

Citations

• 19 Del. 403
• 3 Penne. 403
• 53 A. 356
• 1901 Del. LEXIS 40

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Indictment—Receiving Stolen Goods—Time Alleged not Material—What Necessary to Prove—Evidence— Charader—Confederate—Reasonable Doubt.</p> <p>1. In an indictment charging that the defendant did feloniously receive certain goods, knowing them to be stolen, the following are essantial elements of the crime and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, viz: (i) That the goods were stolen; (2) that the goods were the property of the person named in the indictment, and (3) that when the defendant received the goods he knew that they were stolen.</p> <p>2. Knowledge that goods are stolen may come from declarations made at the time, or from circumstances surrounding the transaction. In such matters the buyer is presumed to have ordinary intelligence, and the jury may consider the circumstances under which the goods were bought as affecting the knowledge of the defendant whether the person offering it for sale came by it honestly or not. Mere possession of stolen goods, standing by itself, does not establish such knowledge of guilt; but it is a circumstance to be considered with all the other evidence in the case.</p> <p>3. Good character of the accused, when proven, is like any other testimony tending to show innocence. The jury are the judges of its quality and weight.</p> <p>4. While a jury may convict upon the unsupported testimony of a participant or confederate in the same crime, the better rule is that conviction should not be had unless such testimony is corroborated in some material part by other testimony or by the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>5. Where the testimony on the part of the State showed that defendant received the stolen property on July 19, held sufficient to support the indictment charging it on the 22d of same month; evidence of a transaction on the 22d being admitted to throw light on the question of guilty knowledge.</p> <p>6. Reasonable doubt defined.</p>