Stokes v. State

Citations

• 58 Miss. 677

Syllabus

<p>1. Larceny, Grand. Verdict without proof of value. Effect.</p> <p>A defendant in an indictment for grand larceny cannot be legally convicted of that offence where there is no proof of the value of the property charged to have been stolen1. Whether a verdict in such case, the evidence being otherwise sufficient, would be sustained as a conviction of petit larceny, quaere.</p> <p>: 2. Same. Possession of stolen property. Presumption. Instruction.</p> <p>In the trial of an indictment for larceny, it is error for the court to instruct the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the property was lost on Monday night and found in the possession of the accused on the Wednesday morning next following, then the law presumes the defendant to have stolen it, and they should convict him upon this evidence alone, without corroboration, unless by proof he overcomes the legal presumption of guilt; and that if he fails to give a reasonable account of his possession, such possession becomes conclusive proof of guilt, and they should find him guilty.</p> <p>-3. Same. Possession of stolen property. Presumption. Proof. Instruction.</p> <p>In no circumstances does the law make possession of stolen property conclusive proof of guilt, and deduce as a presumptio juris, et de jure, that the possessor is the thief. Such possession can raise only a presumption of fact, and may or may not lead the jury in a case to conclude the guilt of the accused, according to the impression made upon their minds by the evidence; but they should be left free to exercise their own judgment as to the weight of such presumption, and should not be instructed by the court that they must conclusively presume guilt from the fact of such possession, nor that the law so presumes.</p>