Musa Alli Mahambi v. R., Crim. App. 26-D-68, 21/2/68, Georges C. J.

Musa Alli Mahambi v. R., Crim. App. 26-D-68, 21/2/68, Georges C. J.

A search of accused ’s home revealed his possession of a radio which had been stolen, during the night, from complainant’s home one month earlier. Complainant’s testimony, as to the original taking, was that she had awakened during the night to see the thief “standing inside the house”; she could not identify the intruder. Accused was convicted on a single charge of burglary and stealing.

            Held: (1) Under the doctrine of recent possession, in such circumstances “It is fair inference ….. that the appellant had either stolen (the radio) or received it knowing it to be stolen.” (2) “The interval seems short enough to support the conclusion that he was the thief.” (3) However, the complainant’s testimony does not indicate that any part of the house was found broken, nor does it assert that the premises had been properly shut the night before. Therefore there can be no conviction under the charge for burglary and stealing. Conviction for stealing substituted.