(Download) "State v. Russell Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Russell Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 21, 1933
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Grand Larceny ? Identification of Property ? Value ? Evidence ? Circumstantial Evidence. Grand Larceny ? Identification of Articles ? Evidence. 1. Testimony by the owner of stolen property ? automobile tires and accessories ? positively identifying the articles as his, though not based upon marks or brands, he stating that he had seen it every day for two years, held properly admitted. Same ? Owner of Property Qualified to Testify to Its Value. 2. In a prosecution for grand larceny the owner of the property who is familiar with its original cost and use is qualified to testify regarding its value, independently of his knowledge of recent sales of similar second-hand property. Same ? Evidence of Similar Offenses Admissible. 3. Where the same night and in the same town automobile accessories similar to those taken from the complaining witness car were stolen from the cars of others and located in the possession of defendant, the testimony of such others was admissible as tending to show that the larceny complained of was part of a system or chain of similar offenses, as well as a part of the res gestae. Same ? Possession of Recently Stolen Property ? Effect as Evidence Taken in Connection With Other Facts. 4. While mere possession of recently stolen property is not alone sufficient to convict the possessor of larceny, although a strong circumstance indicating guilt, where the fact of possession is supplemented by other facts inconsistent with the idea that the possession is honest, such as the giving of a false or improbable explanation of it, or a failure to explain, a case sufficient for the jury is made. Same ? Circumstantial Evidence Rule. 5. Where circumstantial evidence is relied on for conviction of crime, the criminatory circumstances must be consistent with each other and point so clearly to the guilt of the accused as to be inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than his guilt. Same ? Evidence ? Sufficiency. 6. Evidence of guilt in a prosecution for grand larceny held substantial and sufficient to sustain conviction.