Opinion
36841
September 20, 1934
Present, All the Justices.
1. LARCENY — Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction — Testimony of Accomplices — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for grand larceny, the accused was jointly indicted with another for stealing clothes, alleged to be of the value of $75, from a clothes line. The owner of the clothes testified that they were stolen from the line and fixed their value at $63.75. The person jointly indicted with the accused testified for the Commonwealth that he and the accused "entered into a plot" to steal the clothes, stole them and divided them into three parcels, one for the witness, one for his son, who also participated in the crime, and one for the accused. The witness' son testified to the same facts. The accused was found guilty and his punishment fixed at six years in the penitentiary.
Held: That the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. LARCENY — Evidence — Admission of Testimony as to Letter Alleged to Have Been Written by Accused — Failure to Introduce Letter in Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for grand larceny, the accused was indicted for stealing clothes, alleged to be of the value of $75, from a clothes line. He was convicted and sentenced to six years in the penitentiary. The trial court permitted testimony as to an anonymous letter, sent to the son of the owner of the clothes, having attached to it a diagram indicating the point where the clothes were later found. A man accused of the theft because the clothes were found on his property testified as to the contents of the letter and that it was written by the accused. The one to whom the letter was sent also testified as to its contents and that in his opinion it was written by the accused. There was information in the letter reflecting upon the character of the writer and of such a nature as to be very prejudicial to the accused. The letter was not introduced in evidence and the failure to introduce it was not explained. The action of the trial court in admitting the testimony was assigned as error.
Held: That the assignment of error was well made and the admission of the testimony constituted reversible error. The letter was never introduced in evidence; it was never identified or authenticated in any manner whatever; it was not shown to have been written by the accused; and no one familiar with his handwriting testified that he wrote it.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan county.
Reversed.
The opinion states the case.
W. Clyde Dennis, for the plaintiff in error.
Abram P. Staples, Attorney-General, and Edwin H. Gibson, Assistant Attorney-General, for the Commonwealth.
Stacy was jointly indicted with Henry Collins for stealing clothes off of the clothes line of Amanda Charles. The clothes were alleged to be of the value of $75 and Stacy was found guilty of grand larceny and his punishment fixed at six years in the penitentiary. The trial court refused to disturb the verdict.
The Commonwealth introduced Amanda Charles as a witness and she testified that every article of clothing hanging on her clothes line, with the exception of a "bath towel and one or two other cheap garments" were stolen and "that the value of the clothing fixed by me at the time they were stolen is $63.75." There was no other testimony touching the value of the clothes.
Henry Collins, who was jointly indicted with Stacy, testified in behalf of the Commonwealth. He stated that he and Stacy "entered a plot together to steal the clothes of Amanda Charles." He confessed that he and Stacy stole the clothes and divided them "into three parcels" giving one to Stacy, one to a son of Collins who was participating in the crime and that he took one for himself.
The son of Collins testified to the same facts that were testified to by the father.
The court permitted one Bud Matney to testify as to the contents of an anonymous letter which had been sent to Jack Charles, the son of Amanda Charles. The letter had attached to it a drawing which indicated the point where the clothes were later found. The letter was signed by "The Shadow" and the information contained in it led to the recovery of the stolen property. Jack Charles, to whom the letter was sent, also testified as to the contents of the letter. Matney testified that the letter was written by the accused. Charles testified that in his opinion it was written by the accused. There was other information in the letter which reflected upon the character of the writer and disclosed a contemplated visit to a young woman for immoral purposes. This information was of such a nature that it was very prejudicial to the accused and unless he had been shown to be the writer of the letter, the testimony should not have been admitted. The letter was not introduced in evidence and the failure to introduce it has not been explained.
There were two errors assigned. The first was that "the evidence does not show that your petitioner committed any crime."
We think that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The second assignment was directed to the action of the court in admitting the testimony regarding the contents of "The Shadow" letter.
We are of the opinion that the assignment is well made. The "Shadow Letter" was never introduced in the evidence; it was never identified or authenticated in any manner whatever; it was not shown to have been written by the accused; and no one familiar with his handwriting testified that he wrote it. The failure to introduce the letter has not been explained and the immorality suggested in it was bound to have prejudiced the accused in the minds of the jury. It is true, the witness Matney testified that he "knew the letter written and signed by 'The Shadow' and testified about in the evidence in this case was written by Adam Stacy." But just how he knew it is not shown. When we consider the fact that Matney was being accused of the theft of these same clothes because they had been found on his property, his statement that he "knew" that the accused wrote the letter, without some explanation of how he knew it, is entitled to little or no credit.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.