RECENT POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY. In Criminal Law. Possession of the fruits of crime recently after its commission is prima facie evidence of guilty possession ; and if unex plained, either by direct evidence, or by the attending circumstances, or by the character and habits of life of the possessor, or other wise, it is usually regarded by the jury as con clusive. 1 Taylor, Ev. 122. See 1 Green leaf, Ev. t 34.
2. It is manifest that the force of this rule of presumption depends upon the recenq of the possession as related to the crime, and upon the exclusiveness of such possession.
If the interval of time between the loss and the finding be considerable, the presumption, as it affects the party in possession of the stolen property, is much weakened, and the more especially so if the goods are of such a nature as, in the ordinary course of things, frequently to change hands. From the nature of' the case, it is not possible to fix any precise period within which the effect of this rule of presumption can be limited: it must depend not only upon the mere lapse of time, but upon the nature of the property and the concomitant circumstances of each particular case. Thus, where two ends of woollen cloth in an unfinished state, consisting of about twenty yards each, were found in the posses sion of the prisoner two months after they had been stolen, Mr. Justice Patteson held that the prisoner should explain how he came by the property. 7 Carr. & P. 551. But where the only evidence against a prisoner was that certain tools had been traced to his pos session three months after their loss, Mr. Justice Parke directed an acquittal. 3 Carr. & P. 600. And Mr. Justice Mamie pursued a similar course on an indictment for horse, stealing, where it appeared that the horse was not discovered in the custody of the accused until after six months from the date of the robbery. 3 Carr. & K. 318. So where goods lost sixteen inonths before were found in the prisoner's house, and no other evidence was adduced against him, he was not called upon for his defence. 2 Carr. & P. 459.
3. It is obviously essential to the just ap plication of this rule of presurnption that the house or other place in which the stolen property is found be in the exclusive posses sion of the prisoner. Where they are found in the apartments of a lodger, for instance, the presumption may be stronger or weaker according as the evidence does or does not show an exclusive possession, Indeed, the finding of stolen property in the house of the accused, provided there were other in mates capable of committing the larceny, will of itself be insufficient to prove his p)s session, however recently the theft may have been effected, though, if coupled with proof of other suspicious circumstances, it may fully warrant the prisoner's conviction even though the property is not found in his house until after his apprehension. 1 Taylor, Ev. f 122 ; 3 Dowl. & R. 572 ; 2 Stark. 139.
4. The force of this presumption is greatly increased if the fruits of a plurality or of a series of thefts be found in the prisoner's pos session, or if the property stolen consist of a multiplicity of miscellaneous articles, or be of an uncotnmon kind, or, from its value or other eireamstances, be inconsistent with or unsuited to the station of the party.
The possession of stolen goods recently after their loss may he indicative not of the offence of larceny simply, but of any more aggravated crime which has been connected with theft. Upon an indictment for arson, proof that property which was in the house at the time it was burnt was soon afterwards found in the possession of the prisoner was held to raise a probable presumption that he was present and concerned in the offence. 2 East, Pl. Cr. 1035. A like inference has been raised in the case of murder accom panied by robbery, Wills, Circ. Ev. 72, 241 ; in the cases of burglary and sbopbreaking, 4 Barnew. & Ald. 122, per Best, J.; 9 Carr. & P. 364; 1 Mass. 106 ; and in the case of the possession of a quantity of counterfeit money. Russ. & R. Cr. Cas. 308 ; Dearsl. Cr. Cas. 552.