Court Opinion

ID: 5262115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 18:46:14.924413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:28:05.813401
License: Public Domain

Page, J.:
I concur in the result of Mr. Justice Smith’s opinion. In my opinion the thief is not the accomplice of the receiver of the goods stolen, except where the stealing of the particular goods is induced or procured by the receiver, in which as the main purpose of the theft is to dispose of the particular goods to the receiver, and it is through his incitement and inducement that the theft is committed, they are both united in a common plan to steal goods for the purpose of disposing of them to the receiver; and, therefore, I am of opinion that not alone would the receiver be the accomplice of the thief in the larceny, but the thief would be the accomplice in the receiving.
In the case under consideration the receiver merely advertised his business by telling the thief that if he had goods to dispose of he would take them from him. There was no inducement to the particular theft. The evidence tended to show the guilty knowledge of the receiver, and no corroboration was necessary of the thief’s testimony.
Clarke, P. J., and Greenbaum, J., concur.
Judgment affirmed.