State v. . White

144 S.E. 299, 196 N.C. 1, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 254

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 12, 1928
• Status: Published

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

The decisive point in the case is whether or not the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the State was sufficient to have been submitted to the jury.

The evidence produced by the State disclosed that the theft was committed on the night of 18 October, 1927. It appeared from evidence offered by the defendant that the stolen watch was in his possession prior to 1 November, 1927, or within a period of two weeks. The defendant made contradictory statements with respect to the person from whom the watch was procured, stating to one witness that he secured it from a girl, and to another witness that he had purchased it from an unidentified man named “Jess,” whose full name the defendant declined to disclose.

In some of the earlier cases it was held for law that the personal possession of stolen property raised violent, probable or rash presump tions, depending upon the length of time elapsing from the theft to the discovery of possession by the accused. S. v. Jennett, 88 N. C., 666; S. v. McRae, 120 N. C., 609, 27 S. E., 78.

The case of S. v. Hullen, 133 N. C., 656, 45 S. E., 513, discloses a fact situation almost identical with the case at bar. Hullen was indicted for breaking into a house in the daytime and stealing a watch. The law was thus declared: “It is not necessary that we should here draw any nice distinctions concerning the presumptions of guilt based on recent possession as being strong, probable or weak, because the court in its charge, to which there was no exception, instructed the jury that the recent possession of the defendant was only a circumstance to be weighed by them in passing upon his guilt, and this charge is sustained, we believe, by all the authorities. If recent possession of the stolen goods is evidence that defendant committed the larceny, it must also of necessity be evidence of the fact that the defendant broke and entered the house, because it is evident that the larceny was committed in the house by the person who broke and entered it, and there is no evidence that it was committed in any other way.”

Again, in S. v. Anderson, 162 N. C., 571, 77 S. E., 238, Hoke, J., wrote: “Where a theft is established, the recent possession of the stolen property is very generally considered a relevant, circumstance tending to establish guilt, and when the possession is so recent as to make it extremely probable that the holder is the thief, That is, where in the absence of explanation he could not have reasonably gotten possession unless he had stolen them himself,’ there is a presumption of guilt justifying and, in the absence of such explanation, perhaps requiring a conviction.” S. v. Rights, 82 N. C., 675; S. v. Record, 151 N. C., 695, 65 S. E., 1010; S. v. Ford, 175 N. C., 797, 95 S. E., 154.

There is no hard and fast definition of the term “recent possession,” but the trend of the decisions is to the effect that the time that must elapse after the theft of goods before their possession by the accused, should cease to be considered as tending to show guilt, is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Thus in S. v. Reagan, 185 N. C., 710, 117 S. E., 1, it was held: “The clause, ‘The law presumes the holder to be the thief,’ is not interpreted as a presumption of .law in the strict sense of the term, but only as a presumption of fact which is open to explanation. The defendant testified by way of explanation that his coat had been stolen, but this circumstance did not impair the right of the State to have the jury pass upon the question of the defendant’s recent possession, or of any presumption of fact arising therefrom.” S. v. McRae, 120 N. C., 608, 27 S. E., 78.

The charge of the trial judge was fully in accord with the authorities and the judgment of the court must stand.

No error.