State v. Wright

Citations

• 18 Del. 228
• 2 Penne. 228
• 45 A. 395
• 1899 Del. LEXIS 34

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Indictment; Sufficiency of—Practice—Contradicting Witness when taken by Surprise—Receiving Stolen Goods— What State Must Prove—Evidence—Reasonable Doubt.</p> <p>1. Where a party produces a witness who takes him by surprise by making statements different from those made elsewhere, such party will be permitted to call witnesses to contradict the witness; and it will be for the jury to say which testimony they will believe.</p> <p>2. In a trial for receiving stolen goods, in order to convict, the jury must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that the goods were stolen, second, that they were the property of the person laid in the indictment, and, third, that the defendant, when he bought and received them, knew that they were stolen. Such knowledge may come from declarations made at the time, or from the-circumstances surrounding the transaction.</p> <p>3. Reasonable doubt defined.</p>