SMITH V: STATE:! 913. SMITH y'. STATE. • ' - Opinion delivered Noveniber 23; 1926: 1. CRIMINAL LAW-: —SUFFICIENCY,- OF EVIDENCE T • O SUPPORT -VERDICT.— On. appeal, a verdict of gu • i .. lty must be tested . by the s t r e ngt .1; Of the State's evidence. 2. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODSEVIDENCE.--Ei,ridence held sUffiCient - to • 'sustain Conviction oi receiviig . stolen goods and having then' in , possession. . . . p. ; CRIMINAL LAVV7—.IURISDICTION.—LocEi1 jarisdidtion of . all statutory offenses is in the county where the offense was committed.. a.. CRIMINAL LAW=PDSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODSENUE.--"Under , Crawford & Moses i Dig.; § 2 g 71;' providing tbat any , liersen
liable to be proseci;ted as feceiver of itolen 'personal property : may be tried in any-cOuntY where be "had .or4 ieCeived":such:prop. :_ erty, it was -intendedi to allow the I tF ik1 iin any cOunty -where -the accused either received the property at first or atrany time afterwards had it. • e•••• • • • • ••• • • .. • . • Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court,,Ft. trict ; Joha E. Tatum, 4uclge , ;, affirmed. .• : Jolirt: P. Robert g 'and Evans ,ce Evau ?9,1 , for .appellant. . • H. W; Applegate, Attorney :General,' and Johu L. Carter; Assistant, for appeUeer • HART, J. Hubert Smith was - indicted and . found guilty 'of feloniously receiving and havingin the , eity..of Fort Smith, Arkansas, an automothile„ knoyving it to be stolen.. :„ , „ f:f A ' ccording to the . testimony• . E. B. ,Brown, .Ford touring car of the „value -of -$400 . 'was stolen-from:his garage in 'the, eity- of 'Fort Smith,:, : Sebastian County, Arkansas, on Monday 'night about the-13th ox 14tk April, • 1924. The . witness_ received information - that - a car of the same description, : was in the. possession:. of Hubert Sinith at- his . residence in the _southern , p , art of Logan. County, Arkansas: .The witmess. , -first : went to -Booneville. in Logan County an0 scoureka . ,iwarrant :for the , arrest of .Hubert..Sinith: . Tie-then went*. a school house where . Hubert Smith was teaching, school .in Logan County.. Brown told him , that, he helieved„ . .from the -description of the car that , Smith had, that , it was .‘his
914 SMITH V. STATE. [169 car, and asked him what he had done with it. Smith said that he had sold it to a man named Carl at:Spiro, Okla-homa, who was a stranger to him. Brown asked him if he knew where the Car was at that time, and Smith replied that he did not. 'Brown then 'fold Smith that he was accused of being mixed ,up in the matter., Smith proposed to dismiss his school and help hunt the car. Brown told Smith that he believed that he kriew where the car was, and told him that he had a warrant for him and believed that he was lying to him about riot knowing where the car Was. Smith then told Brown that he had sold the .car in Wichita, Kansas. • Brown then proposed to him that, if he•would go' with him to get the car and they found it all right, he would not arrest Smith. They agreed to this and went:to Wichita; Kansas, and got the car. Brown had to pay $200 before he could get the car. We 'quote further from the testimony of Brown as follows : "Q. What reply did he make? A. told him I. knew who he got 'the car' from. Q.• . Who? A. Froth NeaPFUller. Q.. Dia he make a ieply to that? A. No, sir ; he did not make any reply. .1 hsked him if he was hot with Neal FUller; the Saturday before the car Was stolen Monday night, arid he said he was I said you and hiin Met at BoOneville,'and you waited for Puller to bring you :this car, and you knew it was going t'o be stelen beforelt was ,stolen, and yo'u were at Bebneville waiting for it? Q. 1=i.d he make a reply to that? A. No sir; he just' hung hia head." Brown also testified that he had nothing to do with the arrest and prosecy.- .tion of the defendant except as compelled to testify' after being subpoenaed in the case. • According to the testimony of George L:Hays, along about The 18th or 19th of April, 1924, he saw the defendant in Booneville', alid told him and his brother that they could go' home with hini that night if they wanted to. The defendaht told him that Neal Fuller had called him from FOrt &nab that dav and tola him that he' had a -car he thonght would suit him, and a price that would
AR K . SMITH V. STATE. 915. suit hini, and that it would be there for hini to look at that evening. The defendant 'said that Neal knew that he was on the market for a, car if he could get one that suited him. " - 'According to the testimony. of- John Roberts, he asked the defendant where he got the cak, and •he told him that he had bought it from a glass blo*erat Boone-ville named Allen. • • • ACcording td the' testiniony of 'Clyde -BrOwnfieId i lie agreed tO purchase 'the cat from, the:defendant 'at BOnanza, Arkansas,. in June, 1924, and came to Fort Smith in Sebastian County; Arkansas, in : the ' car with the defendant. The witnesS drove the f car, and the defendant caMe with . him to Fort Smith in it: After 'they 'arrived imFort Smith, the witness'paid the -defendant for the car: The witness then, VOA the 'car to Wichita, KansaSiand sOld it to 'a dealer there. The witness paid : the'defendant altogether $225 for' the car: ' • • • • On crossl examination;' the Witness answered that he liad been tried oh the day befOre...on the charge of selling stolen, property. He 'was referring to the eat in question, and was acquitted Of the charge by the' jury trying him. • According tO the testimony of Bob Willianison, the constable of Upper' Township, Sebastian COunty, `Arkan-sas, 'fie kneW'the defendant, Hubert Snnth; and'Went .to g ee bin:I:about the 11th of Jnne; 1924, at' Ione in IJOgan County; Arkansas, and- told-him what 'his business Was: The'witness asked 'Sinith What'he had done'ivith the' Cars, referring'to' the one which Smith had ieceritly coiiie intO possession of,' and 'Smith'Said that he had sold- it.' :The witness'then asked hini'Who ie had :got it frOm,'and Sinith replied that he had got it frOra John. Allen, a glaSS bloW0 at Fort Sthith. ,The-WitneSs then 'asked Smith if he had not gotten his"car p rom Neal Fuller, and'he said, "Well; no. What makes you think , sc;73 ' ' Smith stated further that he had sold'the car' to a man named Carl at Spiro, Oklahoma; The 'Witness asked hith how Allen, the glass blower, knew that he wanted a car, and Smith replied that
916, SMITEI V. STATE. [169 he did inot get ; it ..from Neal:Fuller-;_ but that Neal:Fuller knew ;that he .was .i..4 the . market . for a bargain in a car and sent Allen :down with:the car.. - According to the testimony of the defendalit and the witnesses, in his.beholf, ,he bought the car in good faith, not: knowing that .it had :been stolen.„ ,pot, necessary to obstroct : the, defendant's testi-. mony, for the reason that the verdict of , guilty must be tested, by the strength Of the eyidence , for the State.. the d*ndant twas..;indictecl,',under §, I 2493.. of., grow-ford 86 Moses ':pigest, which; provides that ;whoever shall reseiye or buy; any . stolen chattels knowing them . to . -120 .stolen, with2;thejatent;_to, deprive the, true .owner, thereof; shall, upon : eonyietion,,beTunishecl as in cases of larceny. Thus it will be. .seen. that the.. eyil . ;to i be guarded against by .the passage . of ithet _statute was to prevent . persons . from ren-0ring:efficient, aid to the ; one t ealing ;the ,property. with intent to deprive the true owner thereof. . .: • In the-case at,bar,, the evidence shows that the automobile had , been recently., stolen , and .. was ins the posses: sion t of . the defendant. He sold it soon ,afterwards : to.one who in turn , . sold it,; to; an. automobile deafer in another $tate„ . _These - facts,itogether, with the . declaration : of the defendant i that he received it ,froin another person, may be taken, as ;Sufficient: evidence that he, receiyed it from the thiek„ . :instead l of .stealing ; contradietory statements as to:how he came ., into the possession.of. the automobile . . ;. and , where he. ' disposed.. of . it may ' also. ibe considered in ,determining his guilt or innocence. ,Ifis silence and . e.Vasive . answers when questioned with regard to:: his. inlay.•1“i'o,wledge.. of the theft of 'the 1aUtomobile were . 01 proper matters for, thcconsideration of the jury. tbe facts ,auci circumstances together were . sufficient to .war rant .the jury . in.finding the . defendant . guilty,. . See ;Sio: ns v. 'State 116-Ark. 351 . . , . • The.record.shows that the, automobile was stolen..in the I city , of Fort .Smith in : Sebastian gounty and carried to . Logan , County, ,A,rYansas,, and .received, by the, defend-
SAnTg: v., ST . Am. 917. ant there. The defendant then contracted ,to sell , the automobile to another person and went with that .person . to the city of Fort Smith, and received his .pay for, it, in that city., The, automobile waS then taken by the ,person whobought . it from the defendant into the State of Kan-sas and sold there. . . The . circuit, court . was requested, to charge the:jury that, if . they believed that. the, defendant first:bought or in any :way .received the •utomobile in Logan County and afterwards- brought , it„to . Fort .Smith and ' there 'sold' it, he could not be convicted of 'the crime of receiving stolen. property. The court refused, to give . this instr a nction, and gave 'others instructions 'which. allowed . the . jury to . On-vict..the defendant upon proof that ,he knowingly., had the stolen 'automobile in Sebastian County. with the intent to deprive ,the .owner, of ,it. , . . • . !• • •The defendant was indicted .under . § 2493 , of, Craw:- ford & Moses . ' .Digest, ,which reads. as, follows , .".W.ho.ever. shall- receive . ,or. buy Any- 2stoleni.goods, money or 'chattels, knowing them to be stolen, with intent to depriye the true owner.thereof, ,shall,,upon conviction; be, punished as is,- or may be,, ,by law prescribed for, the larceny of such goods or chattels in cases of larceny." ..:•. In this connection we must also consider § 2871 of the D , i o. est, • . which reads _as follows.: . . • . . • ". When any person shall be liable: to be: prosecuted as the receiver of any. personal property , that. may have been feloniously stolen, taken, or embezzled, he may be indicted, tried and convicted in any, county where he received or had such property, notwithstanding,sucb larceny •may - have been committed in another. county.", • Counsel , for the:defendant call our attention to , the, fact that, while' at 'common law larceny was regarded. as a felony , committed where the' goods , were..-feloniously, taken, yet for the p urpose of iurisdiction :the crime; was treated -as ha y ing been committed within . any jurisdiction into - which tbe pro p erty was afterwards ,carried. This, rul6- pyoce6ds on the' legal assumption tb0„-wbere,.
918 SMITH V. STATE. [169 1 property has been feloniou g y taken, every act of removal may be regarded as a g new taking . and asportation. Hence it' is contended ;that § 2871 was passed for the purpose of restricting the jurisdiction of courts in cases of receiv-ingiStolenTrOperty to the county in which ihe property was . received. If 'such was the purpose' of the' Statute, it need not have been passed: . The crime' of feCeiving 'stolen property is purely -statutory, and 'under 'our COnstitution, which folloWs 'the O6minon. law, th6 lOcal jurisdiction of all statutory offenses 'is in the county where -the offense was committed. So, the offense 'having been created by statute, the jurisdiction would n.ecessatily be confined to the. coimty" where it was. committed, unless the Legislature otherwise provided. In other words; the , crime being purely statutory, if § 2493 stood alone, the jurisdiction would be ifled in the':county where the- stolen .preperty was received.: The evident pUrpose of the- Legislature in passing. § 2871 was to prevent trade and comMerce in stolen: Chattels in thts "State. - The Legislaturel had the right to Make it a'crime'to receive chattels knowing they were stelen with' the intent-to defraud the :owner; and this is the gist of the .offense:i • - - • We: can perceive no reason why the Legislature could not make it a crime to have in possession!' stolen proP1 erfy"with the intenf io deprive the owner of it in • any county : intorwhich the, property was . carried as- well as the county hi which it was : originally received. But it is 'insisted that the language of § 2871• is nof suf e f n ic t i ly cOmprehensive f OF that purpoSe. - We cannot agree With'this ointention. The language of the statute is that when any persOn is liable to be prosecuted as the receiver of ;stolen property, he may be•indicted in unY cOunty where he rec . eived or had such property: It iS claimed that the words, "or had," -have no meaning'Of their oWn, ;but are synonythous with the word "reeeive." • The dictionary meaning of "haVe'''is to hold in' possession or control, and . we think that jurisdiction
ARN.] SMITH V. STATE. • . 919 is conferred to try the accused in any . county where he receives the stolen property or , has possession of the stolen property as receiVer. This view is in accord with Wills v. Peopte, 3 Parker's Ct. Rep. (N. : Y.), p. 473: In that case in construing a similar statute it was held ;that a person may be tried and Convicted of. the offense :ofz feloniously receiving and having stolen goods-, either in the county where the accused originally.received the stolen property, or hi any county in Which he afterwards had it. In discussing the questionthe . cOurt said: The statute 'is that' the ,receiver of, stolen -. goods 'may be indicted, tried and convicted where he -received or had .such property, notwithstanding siich theft was committed in another county.' '. (2: R. S. 726, par.'43). The reviser's note to' this seCtion is: aii-Aogy tO the rule which dlloys a PrOseention:for theft in ,any county where the stolen goods shall be carried. There is a similar English. statute.' (3 R. S: . 844;' 845, 2d : ed.) The English statute is that the Teceikr er m'aY.be 'prosecuted 'in any county or place in whiCh he Shalt have, or shalIhave had, any such property in his 'possession' (2 Russ. on Cr. 238), not using the word 'received' as tour statute does. This shOws that the natural meaning of our statute is its true Meaning,. and that it was intended to allow the 'trial in aily county where the prisonere . it . her receiVed the property at first,' or at any time afterwards The' words, 'or had,' are imtheanin& witheut this interpret • ation.'" .W6 find no prejudicial' error' in the reeerd, and the judgthent must therefore 130 affirined.'
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.