1082 DANIELS V. STATE. 1168 DANIELS V. STATE. • . Opinion delivered June 8, 1925. 1.. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS—EVIDENCE. — Evidenee held sufficient to sustain a conviction of receiving stolen goods. 2. LARCENY—RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS—UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION.— Unexplained possession of recently stolen goods . is legally sufficient to warrant conviction of either larceny or receiving stolen goods. 3. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS—WEIGHT OF TESTIMONY.—The . weight to be given to accused's explanation of ,his possession of recently stolen goods, and of the inferences to be drawn therefrom are questions for the jury. 4. WITNESSES—CROSS-EXAMINATION.—In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, the accused may be asked on cross-examination whether he had committed burglaries, for the purpose of affecting his credibility. . 5. CRIMINAL LAM r —JuDrCIAL NOTICE.—It is judicially known that the city of Little Rock is in Pulaski County. 6. CRIMINAL LAW—EVIDENCE OF VENUE.,— Evidence that property was stolen from a house of a certain street number in Little Rock establishes the venue as in Pulaski County. Appeal from Pulaski . Circuit Court, First Division; John W. Wade, Judge ; affirmed. Sam Robinson, for appellant. H. W. Applegate, Attorney. General and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee. MeCuLLOCH, C. J. This is an appeal ,from a judgment of conviction of the crime of receiving stolen property, the alleged offense occurring in the city of Little Rock. . Appellant is a negro boy, sixteen or seventeen years old; and is alleged to have received the stolen articles from another boy named Davis. The State proved that a lot of different articles, including wearing apparel, jewelry and other things, were stolen from the home of Mrs. Gardner, and that immediately after the hiirglary some of the stolen articles were found in possession of appellant at his room in the city. A police officer testified that he found in appellant's room the coat of a blue serge suit, and a "pin-striped suit of clothes," some
ARK.] DANIELS V. STATE. 1083 jewelry and other articles,. which were said to have been stolen : from Mrs: Gardner's residence. The proof was sufficient to show that these articles found in appellant's room were the ddentical articles which were stolen from the house named. It is contended, in the first place, that the evidenCe was insuffibient to sustain tlie verdict, in that it does not shout *that appellant knew that the property had been stelen.' 'He testified that he 'roomed at the same -house with Davis, and that, when the landlady reqUired Davis and the girl With whom he was living to move out , of the houSe, the girl turned the articles over to'him (appellant) to keeP as 'Davis' ptoperty, and that he did not know that the property • was stolen: HO testified that all:he knew about' the property' was' that the 'girl -Wined it over to him to keep. The rule has long been maintained by this court that unexplained possession of property recently stolen constitutes legally sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, either of larceny or receiving stolen property. Sons v. State, 116 Ark. 357'; Mays v. State, 163 Ark. 232. The weight to be given to the testimony and the inference to be drawn therefroni are questions for the jury. It was a matter 'for the jury to determine the reasonablenesS . and sufficiency of the explanation' given by the accused of his possession of the stolen property. After , the appellant , had testified in the case and stated that the articles were delivered to him as the property of Davis, the State introduced Davis in rebuttal, and he stated that he did not have anything to do with the property found in appellant's room. He said that he owned a blue serge . suit, and that : the coat Of the*-§uit was at his house, but . that. it was not at the house of appellant, and that . he had nothing to. do with the property found•at appellant ? s house. This testimony tended to contradict the testimony of appellant and added to the weight of the evidence. We think that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
1084 [168 The next assignment of error relates to, the ruling permitting the prosecuting attorney to ask appellant on cross-examination whether or not he had committed other burglaries. This was competent, under well settled rules of evidence, for the purpose of affecting appellant's credibility as a witness. It is also contended that the proof is not sufficient to establish the venue in Pulaski County. The witnesses testified as to the home of Mrs. Gardner:on a certain street in Little Rock from which the property , was stolen, and also the location in the city of the house in which appellant roomed and where the stolen goods were found. It is judicially known that the whole of the city of Little Rock is in Pulaski County, and the mention of a street number of a house in the city is sufficient to prove the venue. Judgment affirmed.
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.