State v. Kyle

Citations

• 14 Wash. 550
• 45 P. 147
• 1896 Wash. LEXIS 404

Syllabus

<p>LARCENY OP NEAT CATTLE — SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION — VENUE — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — POSSESSION OF RECENTLY STOLEN PROPERTY— BURDEN OF PROOF-INSTRUCTIONS — FALSE TESTIMONY.</p> <p>The inclusion, in an information charging the stealing of neat cattle, of an allegation that they were of the value of $20 per head, does not affect the validity of the information upon the ground that it constitutes an attempt to charge grand larceny, as such allegation may be rejected as surplusage.</p> <p>The stealing oí neat cattle may be prosecuted either in the county where the property was first taken or in the county into which it was brought by the thief, under Code Proc., § 1194, authorizing the prosecution of larceny either in the county where committed or in the one into which the stolen property is taken.</p> <p>No constitutional rights of defendants in criminal prosecutions are violated by the act of March 21,1895, providing that, in prosecutions for larceny under Penal Code, §52, where the animal alleged to have been stolen was permitted to run on the range, proof of possession of the animal by the person accused of stealing the same shall be prima facie evidence that he acquired possession thereof recently, and shall have the effect of throwing on him the burden of explaining such possession.</p> <p>The failure of the court to insert the word “wilfully” before “ falsely,” in charging as to the effect upon the credibility of a witness who has testified falsely as to a material fact, does not constitute reversible error, as a witness does not testify falsely unless he makes a wilfull misstatement. (Gordon and Anders, JJ., dissent).</p>