
    No. 8486.
    The State of Louisiana vs. Amelia Kimble.
    When stolen property is found in the possession of the person charged with larceny, it is for the accused to show how he came by said property, and it is for the jury to decido whether his account or explanation of such a fact is reasonable or sufficient, or not. Such account is not to be taken for true, simply because the prosecution docs not rebut it.
    APPEAL from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Caldwell. Bridger, J.
    
      Bolt. J. Oaldmll. for Defendant and Appellant:
    Only one question of law is presented.
    “ One found in possession of stolen property, and who gives a reasonable account of how he came by it, throws the burden of proof on the State to show that the account is false.’5 3 Greenleaf, Section 32; 2 Bishop Crim. Procedure, Section 746.
    Defendant was found guilty, at the January term, 1882, of the above court, of the larceny of a chair worth seventy-five cents, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment at hard labor*
    Greenleaf and Bishop refer to Common Law authority, and their doctrine seems to be good law. Archbold and Wharton only say, that recent possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt — that is correct doctrine. That does not meet the case.
    The District Judge says: “The presumption, that newly stolen goods found in the possession of dofeudant, were stolen by him, may be overcome by evidence explaining the possession 5 any such evidence legitimately tending to explain the possession should be received and considered.”
    He throws the burden of proof on defendant.
    Bishop says that the prisoner’s “explanation may be produced in evidence to the jury in his behalf, and if it is not shown by the prosecution to he false, its weight in the scale for him will be very considerable. * ** * Such an explanation, especially if given instantly upon the property being discovered, and the accusation brought home to the prisoner’s knowledge, is deemed a part of the res gestee.” Same volume.
    Bishop further says, that this ‘ ‘ is the doctrine of reason, and not apparently contradicted by any authorities requiring notice.”
    Defendant respectfully submits that the Judge ought to have charged as requested — it is the Common Law rule The question presented is one relating to evidence and to the burden of proof. Greenleaf has always been i egarded as the best authority.
    Besides all this, every presumption is in favor of defendant.
    J". 0. Egaii) Attorney General, for tlie State, Appellee :
    1. The following is not a correct principle of law, and should not, therefore, he given to the jury: “The general rule is, that where a man in whose possession stolen property is found, gives a reasonable account of how he came by it, it is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the account is false ” Bishop on Crim. Pro., Sec. 746, with note.
    2. The following, taken together with the rest of the charge, properly lays down the law of evidence in a case of larceny: “ Where the stolen goods, immediately after the theft, are found in the possession of defendant, the presumption is that he stole them; and if he give a reasonable account of how he came by them, the prosecution is not bound to show such accountto he false. Possession of stolen propeity is not of itself sufficient to warrant a conviction. It is only a circumstance to be considered with other evidence. The presumption that newly stolon goods found in the possession of defendant wore stolen by him may he overcome by evidence explaining the possession. Any such evidence legitimately tending to explain the possession should be received and considered.
    3. “It may be laid down generally, that whenever the property of one man, which has been taken from him without his knowledge or consent, is found upon another, it is incumbent ■ on that other to prove how he came by it; otherwise the presumption is, that he obtained itfeloniously. This, like every other presumption, is strengthened, weakened or rebutted by concomitant circumstances, too numerous in the nature of the thiug to he detailed.” Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, 5 Am. Ed., p. 18 ; lb. p. 643 ; Ciiminal Law Magazine, Yol. I. p. 11; Waterman's XL S. Crim. Digest, Sec. 392, p. 406; Arehbold's Or. Pr. and PL, 7t-h Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 397, et setj.; Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, 4th Ed., Secs. 728 and 730.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

The prisoner was prosecuted for larceny, tried,' convicted and sentenced to twelve months at hard labor in the penitentiary.

It is sought on appeal to have the judgment set aside, on the ground that the District Judge refused to charge the jury that “the general rule is that where a man in whose possession stolen property is found, gives a reasonable account of bow he came by it, it is incumbent on the prosecution to show that his account is false.”

The rule is recognized by Greenleaf, but qualified by Bisliop, who adds : “ But if the account given by the prisoner be unreasonable or improbable on the face of it, the onus of proving its truth lies on him. Suppose, for instance, a person were to charge me with stealing this watch, and I were to say that I bought it from a particular tradesman whom I name; that is aprima fade reasonable account, and I ought not to be convicted of felony, unless it is shown that the account is a false one.” Bishop Crim. Proc. Sec. 740, N. 4; Reg vs. Crowhurst, 1 Car. and L. 370; see also Waterman Crim. Dig. Sec. 392, p. 406.

The Judge charged the jury that where the stolen goods, immediately after the theft, are found in the possession of the defendant, the presumption is that he has stolen them, and if he gives a reasonable account of how he came by them, the prosecution is not bound to show such account to be false. Possession of stolen property is not of itself sufficient to warrant a conviction, it is only the circumstance to be considered with the evidence. The presumption that newly stolen goods found in the possession of defendant were stolen by him, may be overcome by evidence explaining the possession. Any such evidence legitimately tending to explain such possession, should be received.”

The court did not err in refusing the charge asked, and 'in giving that which it did. The question of reasonableness of the account or explanation given by the accused, is a matter for the consideration of the jury. If the account is justified by the accused, and is considered reasonable by the jury, and the State has not disproved it, or if it raises a reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the jury to acquit; while if the account is unreasonable or improbable on its face, or if the accused does not verify his explanation, the jury should find against him. Archbold Or. Pr. and Pl. 7th Ed. Vol. II, p. 397; Wharton Am. Crim. L. 4th Ed. Secs. 728, 730; Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. 5th Am. Ed. pp. 18, 048; Crim. Law Mag. V. I, p. 11.

We have no opinion to express touching the extent of the punishment inflicted. The District Judge could have sentenced the accused front one day to two years at hard labor. He condemned the prisoner to twelve months in the penitentiary.

Judgment affirmed.  