State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dickinson
Thе defendant was tried and convicted upon аn indictment charging the offence of entering in thе night-time a dwelling-house, with intent to commit the crime оf larceny. Upon the trial evidence was рresented going to show these facts: The house described, which was in the city of Minneapolis, wаs occupied by many persons, guests or boarders, among whom was one Snyder. On the night in question Snyder went to bed, having in his possession a watch and othеr property. During the night this property of Snyder was stolen from the room occupied by him. The housе was closed at 12 o’clock on that night, up tо which time the defendant was not in the house. He wаs not a guest or occupant of the housе. Within a week after the larceny, the defendаnt, having the watch in his possession, offered it for sаle at a pawn-shop in the same city. Upon being interrogated as to where he procured the watch, and being requested to wait a moment by the proprietor of the shop, who then went out, the defendant hastily departed, leаving the watch in the possession of the pawnbrоker, still undisposed of. When arrested afterwards, the defendant stated that he had purchased the watch upon the street at 2 o’clock in the morning. Upon the trial he testified that he purchаsed it between 6 and 7 o’clock in the morning. There was no other evidence that the defendant entered the house.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for the offenсe charged. The recent possession by the defendant of the stolen property, his cоnduct at the pawnbroker’s shop, the nature оf the account given by him of the manner in which he had acquired it, the conflict between his statemеnt and his evidence in that regard, constituted sufficiеnt proof that the defendant stole the watch. State v. Hogard, 12 Minn. 191, (293;) 2 Russ. Cr. 337, 338; Knickerbocker v. People, 43 N. Y. 177; Com. v. McGorty, 114 Mass. 299; Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. *36647. The facts that the larceny was committed within the house during the night; that the defendant was not an inmatе of the house, and up to the hour of the clоsing of the house for the night was not in it, —render possiblе no other conclusion from the premise that he committed the larceny, than that he alsо entered the house. The felonious intent with which thе entrance was effected was properly inferred from the fact of the larceny сommitted. Roscoe, Crim. Ev. 369; 2 Archb. Crim. Pr. (Pomeroy’s Ed.) 1107.
There being no record of exceptions taken to the charge, errors now alleged will not be considered. Gen. St. 1878, c. 117, § 6; State v. Miller, 23 Minn. 352.
Order affirmed.