Harris v. State
Harris v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. The motion to quash the indictment was properly overruled. A charge of burglary and larceny may be joined in a single count. Roberts v. State, 55 Miss. 423.
2. The fourth instruction for the State conforms to the doctrine laid down in Stokes’ Case, 58 Miss. 680, that the possession of recently stolen property is a circumstance from which the jury may
3. The fact that the indictment charged an intent in the burglary to steal the property of one man, and the proof showed an actual stealing of the property of another, was wholly immaterial. 2 Bishop Cr. Pro., §§ 95, 96; Wharton Cr. Law, § 820.
4. The evidence warranted the verdict.
5. It was not error in the court to refuse to investigate the question as to whether the juror was drunk or not, because it was not shown that both the accused and his counsel were ignorant of such intoxication before the trial. The ignorance of the accused alone was not enough. It should have been shown that his counsel was also ignorant of it. Brown’s Case, 60 Miss. 447.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William Harris v. State
- Cited By
- 25 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Burglary. Larceny. Indictment. A charge of burglary and larceny may be joined in the same count in an indictment. 2. Instruction. Possession of recently stolen properly. ■ An instruction that the jury may find the prisoner guilty of burglary, if they believe from the evidence that a burglary was committed in the store of M., and that a pistol was stolen at the time of the commission of such burglary, and that said pistol was thereafter found in the possession of the prisoner, and that it does not appear from the evidence how the prisoner came into the possession of said pistol otherwise than by such burglary or stealing, and that he has not accounted for the recent possession thereof, is , correct. Stokes’ Case, 58 Miss. 680. 8. Indictment. Charge. Proof. The fact that the indictment charges an intent in the burglary to steal the property of one man, and the proof shows an actual stealing of the property of another, is wholly immaterial. 4. New Trial. Competency of juror. Objection after verdict. Prunkenness. It is not error in the court to refuse to investigate the question as to whether a juror was drunk or not, when it is not shown that both the accused and his counsel were ignorant of such drunkenness before the trial. The ignorance of the party alone is not enough.