Case ID: mass_47/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shaw, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Russell F. Stevens vs. The Commonwealth.
    The 20th section of c. 126 of the Rev. Sts., prescribing the punishment of “ every person who shall buy, receive, or aid in the concealment of any stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen,” describes only one offence, which may be committed either by buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of such goods; and an in* dictment which charges a defendant with receiving, and aiding in the concealment of such goods, charges only one offence.
    When a defendant is convicted on an indictment which charges him with receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen goods, he is convicted of only one offence, and if the indictment properly charges the defendant with aiding in the concealment of the goods, he may be legally sentenced, although the charge of receiving the goods is insufficiently made.
    Writ of error to reverse a judgment of the court of common pleas in the county of Middlesex, rendered at the February term 1843, sentencing the plaintiff in error to solitary imprisonment and confinement at hard labor, in the house of correction. The indictment, on which he was found guilty by the jury, and was sentenced, alleged a larceny by David Buswell, of sundry goods and chattels specially described, at Lowell, on the 29th of November 1842, and that the said Stevens, (the plaintiff in error,) “ on the said 29 th of November, the goods and chattels aforesaid ” (describing them, as before described in the indictment) “so as aforesaid feloniously stolen, taken and carried away by the said David Buswell, in manner and farm aforesaid, feloniously did receive and have, and then and there feloniously did aid in concealing the same, he the said Russell F. Stevens then and there well knowing the same goods and chattels to have been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away,” &c.
    Several errors were assigned, which were discussed and overruled in Tunis's case, (ante, 224,) and also the following: “ 6. That it doth not appear by the record, upon which of the two offences, charged in said indictment, the jury found the said Stevens guilty: 7. For that the said Stevens was found guilty of two offences in the same indictment, and sentenced thereon at the same time.”
    
      B. F. Butler, for the plaintiff in error.
    The indictment charges two offences in one count, viz. that the prisoner received stolen goods, and also aided in concealing them, and the verdict is general. For this reason, the judgment is erroneous. Com monwealth v. Symonds, 2 Mass. 163. The People v. Wright, 9 Wend. 193. The State v.Nelson,8 N. Hamp. 163. Besides; the receiving of the stolen goods is not laid with any venue.
    
      S. D. Parker, for the Commonwealth.
    The indictment charges only one offence, and the Rev. Sts. c. 126, <§>20, on which it is founded, provide for the punishment of one offence only. That offence may be committed by buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen goods. But if two offences are charged, yet the charge of aiding in the concealment is laid with a venue, and the prior allegation of having and receiving may be regarded as surplusage, and the sentence be considered as applied to the latter charge.
   Shaw, C. J.

The errors assigned in this case are the same as in other cases, where they have been overruled, with one or two exceptions. The indictment was for feloniously receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and is founded on Rev. Sts. c. 126, § 20, which declare that “every person, who shall buy, receive, or aid in the concealment of any stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be punished,” &c.

The 6th error assigned is, that it doth not appear by the record, upon which of the two offences charged, the jury found the defendant guilty; and 7th, that Stevens was found guilty of two offences, &c. It appears to us, that this is founded on a misapprehension both of the effect of the indictment, and of the statute on which it is founded. The indictment alleges, first, the stealing of the goods described, by a person named Buswell, and then proceeds to state that the defendant the said goods so stolen feloniously did receive and have, and then and there did feloniously aid in concealing the same, then and there well knowing, &c. There is but one count in which the defendant is charged, and there is but one offence with which he is charged. It is made but one offence by the statute, although, according to the language used, it may be committed in one of three modes ; that is, by buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen goods. Whether charged to be done in one, two, or all three of the modes mentioned, it is still but one offence, and the general finding of the jury is, that the offer.ce was committed as charged.

Another exception, not specially assigned for error, hue taken at the hearing, was a want of venue to the fact of receiving and having. The indictment, after charging the stealing on, & c., at Lowell, in said county, avers that said Stevens the said goods so stolen, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously did receive and have, and then and there did feloniously aid in concealing Now, whatever may be said of this allegation of receiving, the fact of aiding in the concealment is charged with a venue, in due form; and we have already said that either act is sufficient to constitute the offence and warrant the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.