Case Name: State v. Goode
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-12
Citations: 1 Hawks 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Goode.
Judges: Tavxor, Chief-Justice, and Hate, Judge, concurred.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 463–466

Head Matter:
State v. Goode.
From Wake.
A receiver of stolen goods under the value of twelve pence, who is tried and found guilty, when the thief has never been prosecuted, but is running at large, amenable to process, is not liable to be punished, and no sentence can be pronounced against him.
This was an indictment for buying and receiving of a negro slave Essex, certain goods of the value of six pence, which Defendant knew Essex had stolen, and the indictment concluded, “ contrary to the form of the star tute.” It appeared that Essex had never been prosecuted, but was running at large, amenable to process. The Court instructed the Jury to pass upon the facts, and find whether the Defendant was guilty of them as charged in the bill. The Jury found the Defendant guilty, and the Court pronounced sentence, not according to the act of Assembly, but as for an offence at Common Law j from which the Attorney-General appealed.

Opinion:
HeNdersoN, Judge.
The Defendant, if guilty of any offence, is so at the Common Law ; for the act of the Legislature, passed in the year 1797, ch. 19, in making the receivers of stolen goods accessories after the fact, relates to such offences only as arc capable of having accessories. And that part which authorises a prosecution for a misdemeanor for receiving stolen goods, refers to such receivers as are embraced in the preceding section—(See 4 Bl. Com. Foster 73.) And according to Goff's case, in this Court, July Term, 1809, if he was wjthin the provisions of this act, he could not have been put upon his trial while the principal offender was un-convicted and amenable to the process of the Court—(See Foster 371.) And I must confess, that after a very diligent examination, I am brought to believe that the act imputed to him is not punishable at all. In petit larceny there are no accessories, but all who are concerned are guilty as principals, if at all. In treason there are no accessories, for all concerned are traitors ; but for opposite reasons, the magnitude of the offence in treason renders criminal in the highest degree, all who in any manner are concerned in it: their offence is not in truth and reality, as great as that of those who actuly perpetrate the treasonable act; but the Law knowing no greater crime than treason, and the aider or adviser being guilty of that offence, it has no standard by which the different degrees of guilt between the two species of offences or treason can be measured or graduated : as the Law punishes with death both the robber and the murderer; not because their crimes are equal, but because robbery is thought to deserve death, and no more than death can be inflicted on the murderer. In petit larceny and smaller offences, only those who are concerned in the commission of the offence, in other words, those who in higher crimes would be principals in the first or second degree, are deemed to be concerned or criminal at all, the law barely punishing the principals or actors, for de minimis non curat lex. If it is asked, how it is shewn that receivers of stolen goods are not concerned in the act, I think it is capable almost of demonstration : a receiver of the thief in grand larceny is an accessory, and of course a felon ; to receive the stolen goods in such case is a bare misdemeanor, which is less than felony. In petit larceny, the receiver of the thief is neither an Accessory nor a felon, it is no offence at all; therefore, receiving the goods, which is shewn to be a less criminal act, cannot be any offence at all. I cannot distinguish this case from Evans's case, reported in Foster 73. I understand that in that case the twelve Judges decided, not only that he was not subject to transportation under the 14th Geo. but that he ought not to have been tried at all, and lie was discharged accordingly. If he was not guilty under the act of Geo. if the offence of which he was convicted was a misdemeanor at the Common Law, he would have received a Common Law punishment. I am therefore compelled to say, that I can find no law for punishing the Defendant. I am aware that Hawkins says, (2 Vol.) that possibly to receive a person guilty of a bare misdemeanor, is a contempt of law, as tending to thwart the administration of justice. He may be correct, but the books furnish no precedent of such a prosecution, for such an offence; it may possibly be a contempt of the law to receive the offender, as thereby he may escape, and the law be eluded ; but to receive the goods can be made a contempt of the law in enabling the offender to escape, by a very strained construction only. But if it was a misdemeanor at the Common Law to receive goods under the value of 12d. yet no judgment can be given against the Defendant in this case : not at Common Law, because the principal fqlon has not been convicted, nor under the statute of 1797, (New Rev. 847, chap. 485.) That statute, so far as regards making the receivers of stolen goods accessories after the fact, can only be applied to those cases' which admit of accessories—(Foster 73; Evans's case, 4 Bl. Com.)—and there are no accessories in petit larceny. But admitting that it does apply otherwise, the principal thief in this case is stated to be at large. See Goff's case in this Court, July term, 1809. It appears by the preamble to the act, that the mischief intended to be remedied was the immunity afforded by the rides of the Common Law, where the principal felon eluded the process of the law. "Where ^ie principal did not elude the process, but was amenable, there was no mischief, as the Legislature conceived, an(j |(. ({¡c{ ,)0¿ |n case intend to change the law. And this construction is much strengthened by the words at the close of the first section, to wit t " which shall exempt the offender, if the principal shall be afterwards convicted." The same inconvenience existed by the Common Law rule as to receivers of stolen goods, of which it appears the Legislature was aware, by using the words, " and also make it their business to conceal such offendersthe act then makes them accessories after the fact, and that they may be prosecuted as for a misdemeanor, and punished as set forth in the preceding clause, although the principal felon be not before convicted of said felony, which shall operate as a bar, and prevent the offender from being punished as accessonj, if such principal felon be afterwards taken and convicted. From the whole of which it is quite evident, that the Legislature intended to make receivers of stolen goods accessories, where the principal offence admitted of accessories, and to punish them for a misdemeanor only where the principal offender was not taken: that where he was amenablo, they were satisfied with the rules of Common Law j and the only alteration introduced by this act, is, by the first section, to subject accessories to trial and punishment for a misdemeanor where the principal offender eludes the process of the law; and by. the second section, to make receivers of stolen goods accessories, (in offences capable of having accessories,) and to subject them to trial and punishment for a misdemeanor, where the principal was not taken, but eluded the process of the Law—(Foster 373.)
I am, for these reasons, of opinion, that no judgment can be passed on the Defendant.
Tavxor, Chief-Justice, and Hate, Judge, concurred.