{ "id": 8722824, "name": "Stewart v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Stewart v. State", "decision_date": "1949-01-31", "docket_number": "4541", "first_page": "497", "last_page": "500", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 Ark. 497" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "216 S.W.2d 873" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "149 S. W. 2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 Ark. 1083", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726030 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/201/1083-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 936", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449844 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0936-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ark. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717928 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/197/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S. W. 2d 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ark. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1438456 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/184/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 918", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478514 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0918-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 4784, "ocr_confidence": 0.518, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.6007338651790124 }, "sha256": "1432af6451eb921ca000f17290e2f88361f9f9b66d1ac860fc369321b62dc05e", "simhash": "1:0e2d440d9e7ab850", "word_count": 833 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Stewart v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant, Russell Stewart, was convicted of the crime of grand larceny and a sentence of one year in the State Penitentiary imposed. Prom the judgment is this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant first contends that the evidence was not sufficient and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty at the close of all the testimony.\nThe evidence shows that between the 15th and 18th of March, 1948, there were stolen from the farm of E. B. White a Buick motor used to operate a sawmill, three sawmill pulleys, timber wedges, a generator water pump and distributor from another Buick motor, and other articles of a value of more than $10. This property was found by officers in the possession of the Yaffee Iron & Metal Company, Muskogee, Oklahoma, and returned to the owner.\nAppellant, upon being questioned by Sheriff Mad-dux of Sebastian county (quoting from the sheriff\u2019s testimony) : \u201cHe, (meaning appellant) admitted that he went over there (Muskogee) and sold the stuff, but couldn\u2019t tell us where he got it. He just said that he probably bought it and he also said he had been down on the island picking up junk.\u201d \u201cThe Court: Mr. Sheriff, did he tell you that he got this stuff? A. We questioned him about the motor and where he got it after we recovered it and he told us that he had been over there the day before and sold this motor.\u201d It appears that these statements by appellant were freely and voluntarily made and there was no objection to the sheriff\u2019s testimony.\nMr. Yaffee testified that he had known appellant \u201csince I was a kid\u201d and that according to his sales tickets, he purchased 1920 pounds of scrap iron for $28.80, from appellant on March 18, 1948. He was not personally present when the purchase was made. He did not make out the tickets himself, and \u201cQ. You don\u2019t know what was bought from Eussell Stewart, do you? A. No, sir.\u2019\u2019\nThere was also evidence that a red Dodge pick-up truck had been seen in the vicinity of Mr. White\u2019s farm shortly before the theft and when appellant was arrested at his home, he had a red pick-up truck similar to the one above referred to.\nFrom the above substantial testimony, the jury was warranted in finding appellant guilty. It appears to be undisputed that he was in possession of the property in question here, which had been recently stolen, and he attempted no explanation of his possession of it other than his statement to officers that he purchased it from two men whom he did not know.\n\u201cWe have several times held that \u2018the possession of recently stolen property, if unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction either of larceny or of receiving stolen property.\u2019 \u201d Jones v. State, 208 Ark. 918, 188 S. W. 2d 131, and in Riley v. State, 184 Ark. 227, 42 S. W. 2d 15, we said: \u201cThe possession of property recently stolen justifies the inference that the possession is a guilty one, and may be of controlling weight unless explained by circumstances or accounted for in some other way consistent with innocence. \u2019 \u2019\nIt is also a well settled rule \u201cthat if the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant then the trial court committed no error in refusing to direct a verdict. In the recent case of Graham and Seaman v. State, 197 Ark. 50, 121 S. W. 2d 892, we said: \u2018It is true that at the end of the testimony for the state appellants asked the court for a directed verdict of not guilty. If, however, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, and we hold it was, of course, there was no error in refusing to give this instruction.\u2019 \u201d McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936, 154 S. W. 2d 810.\nAppellant\u2019s next contention that the state failed to establish the venue of the crime is untenable for the reason that there is a presumption that the offense charged was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court unless the evidence affirmatively shows otherwise. Here the information specifically alleged that the crime was committed in the Greenwood District of Sebastian County, and we find no affirmative evidence in the record to the contrary.\nArkansas Stats. (1947), \u00a7 43-1426, provides: \u201cPresumption of venue. \u2014 It shall be presumed upon trial that the offense charged in the indictment was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, and the court may pronounce the proper judgment accordingly, unless tlie evidence affirmatively shows otherwise. (Initiated Act No. 3 of 1936, \u00a7 26, Acts 1937, p. 1384.\u201d See Meador v. State, 201 Ark. 1083, 149 S. W. 2d 653.\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lyman W. Mikel, for appellant.", "Ike Murry, Attorney General and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Stewart v. State.\n4541\n216 S. W. 2d 873\nOpinion delivered January 31, 1949.\nLyman W. Mikel, for appellant.\nIke Murry, Attorney General and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0497-01", "first_page_order": 535, "last_page_order": 538 }