Booth v. State
| Citation | 398 P.2d 863 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13423,A-13423 |
| Parties | John Fletcher BOOTH, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where stolen goods are recovered by owner or his agent before they are sold, goods are no longer to be considered to be stolen, and purchaser cannot be convicted of receiving stolen goods.
2. A defendant may not be convicted for receiving stolen property if property is no longer in the category of stolen property when he receives it.
3. An accused cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime unless he could have been convicted of the crime itself, if his attempt had been successful. Where the act, if accomplished, would not constitute the crime intended, there is no indictable offense.
4. If all which the accused person intended would, had it been done, constitute no substantive crime, it cannot be a crime under the name 'attempt' to do, with the same purpose, a part of this thing.
5. Where a legal and not a factual impossibility prevents the commission of the crime itself, one cannot be convicted of an 'attempt' to commit that crime.
6. Where a stolen coat had been recovered by the police and subsequently, by pre-arrangement, turned over to the thief to be delivered to the would-be purchaser, purchaser could not be convicted of receiving stolen property because the coat had lost its character as stolen property when recovered for the owner. Neither could he be convicted of an attempt to commit the crime when a legal impossibility prevented its consummation.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; John A. Brett, Judge.
John Fletcher Booth, Jr., was convicted of the crime of Attempting to Receive Stolen Property, and Appeals. Reversed with instructions to dismiss.
Malcolm Baucum and Carrol Samara, Oklahoma City, attorneys for plaintiff in error.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Jack A. Swidensky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
John Fletcher Booth, Jr., was charged by information in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of Receiving Stolen Property, and was found guilty of the lesser crime of Attempt to Receive Stolen Property. The jury assessed his penalty at Two Years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and to pay a fine in the amount of $150.00. From said judgment and sentence the defendant appeals.
The record before this Court reveals that this case arose out of a circumstance as testified to by a self-admitted, well-known thief bearing the name of Charley Stanford, whose FBI 'rap sheet' covers 8 pages of arrests extending over a period of 15 years. He was obviously braggadocio about his convictions and related from the witness stand that he had been arrested approximately 300 times on everything in the book, short of murder and rape. He admitted serving 4 terms in the penitentiary, and having been committed to a mental institution twice. He testified, in substance, that in the early morning hours he was walking in the parking lot at the YMCA in Oklahoma City and sighted a topcoat in a parked automobile. That he jimmied the window and removed the coat, took it to his home at 308 N.E. 8th Street, where he retired until about 7:00 at which time he proceeded down to a pay telephone where he called his attorney (the defendant herein). He testified that he advised him he had the coat he had ordered, and agreed to let him have the coat for $20.00. Arrangements were made for the defendant to meet him at the thief's home at approximately 11:00 A.M. where the transfer was to be made. He returned home, and a friend came by and invited him to go get a drink. He started from his house to his friend's car and was arrested by Lt. Anthony of the Oklahoma City Police Department. He was wearing the stolen coat at the time of his arrest. Lt. Anthony took Stanford to the police station, and asked him where he had gotten the coat and he confessed getting it from the car in the YMCA parking lot.
Lt. Anthony testified, in substance, that he received an anonymous telephone call at approximately 7:00 a. m. on the morning of the day in question, and proceeded to the YMCA and located the owner of the vehicle that had been burglarized. They went then to the vehicle and observed the wing glass had been broken, pried open, and a gray cashmere coat and some shirts were missing. Officer Anthony proceeded to the 300 block on N.E. 8th and saw an ex-convict by the name Charley Stanford leaving his house wearing a gray cashmere coat. Anthony then and there arrested Stanford for Burglary and took him to the police station. He then called Mr. Gothard to the police station, where he identified the coat as his and asked Lt. Anthony for the coat, but was advised that they needed it as evidence. Officer Anthony, Officer Reading and Stanford proceeded to 308 N.E. 8th taking the recovered coat with them. After arriving, they took their position behind a closet door containing 'peep-holes' and waited for the arrival of defendant Booth. According to the testimony of Anthony, the following transpired:
'A. We then went back to the 300 block on 8th Street and I concealed myself in the closet and Mr. Stanford stayed in the other part of the house which was a combination of or the apartment was a combination of a kitchen with a divan on the west side of the room. He laid the overcoat on the divan. And in the door of this clothes closet there was small pin holes and I left the door ajar slightly. Shortly after eleven o'clock Mr. John Booth came to the front door. * * *
'Q. May I ask you and interrupt you at this point. Is that person in the courtroom?
'A. Yes sir.
'Q. Would you please point him out to the Court and Jury, Officer?
'A. That person. (Points to defendant, John Booth)
'Q. Go ahead.
'A. Booth entered the house, and I heard Charlie say. * * * 'BY THE COURT: (Interrupting) Who do you mean by Charlie:
'A. Charlie Stanford.
'BY MR. THOMAS:
'Q. Then what?
'A. I heard Charlie Stanford say, 'John, I got the coat which you wanted.' 'I need the twenty dollars right away.' And Mr. Booth said, 'This is child support month, Charlie, come to my office later and I will give you a check.'
There was other conversation.
'Q. Was there any other conversation relative to the deal?
'Q. Officer Anthony you testified about * * *. , STRIKE THAT. Officer Anthony, how long was Mr. Booth in the house? With Charlie Stanford?
'A. I would judge about ten minutes.
'Q. At which time you were in the closet?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. With the door ajar?
'A. Yes, sir. But I was looking mostly through the small pin holes.
'Q. Were you able to look through the holes?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Tell what you observed.
'A. They came into this particular room. * * *
'A. John Booth and Charlie Stanford. They * * * well, Booth picked up the coat in his arms and there was conversation of and he warned him that the thing was 'hot'.
'Q. Who warned who?
'A. Charlie Stanford warned John Booth that the thing was 'hot'.
'Q. That the coat was 'hot'?
'A. Yes, that's the way he termed it.
'Q. What did Mr. Booth say?
'A. He said, 'well, I know how to handle things like this, don't worry about it, Charlie.'
'Q. Then what happened?
'Q. You testified that Charlie Stanford told him the coat was 'hot'.
'A. He warned him the coat was hot, it was criminal talk, hot or stolen.
'Q. What did Booth say?
'A. Booth said 'I know how to handle these things'.
'Q. 'I know how to handle these things'?
'A. Yes, and 'don't worry about it, Charlie.'
After taking Stanford to the police station, Anthony obtained a search warrant and then maintained a surveillance of Booth's house until he arrived. He then entered the premises, arrested Booth, and again recovered the coat.
Though defendant Booth was charged with Receiving Stolen Property, at the conclusion of the evidence and after the state and defendant had rested their case, the trial judge gave the following instruction:
'Preparation alone to an attempt to commit a crime is not sufficient. * * *'
No doubt this instruction was given based upon the theory that once stolen property has been recovered by the police it loses its character as stolen property. This appears to have been the contention of defense counsel as reflected by the record. When defendant rested his case, the following Motions were made:
'Comes now the defendant at the close of the evidence of the state heretofore rested their case and demurs to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Everett
...and more modern view." People v. Rollino, 37 Misc.2d 14, 18-19, 22, 233 N.Y.S.2d 580, 584-86 (1962); accord Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863, 872 (Okl.Cr.App.1964). By 1970 the abolition of the defense of impossibility had become "the overwhelming modern position." I Working Papers of the Natio......
-
State v. Moretti
...certiorari denied 350 U.S. 966, 76 S.Ct. 434, 100 L.Ed. 838 (1956); Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F. 412 (9th Cir. 1915); Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okl.Cr.App.1965); Perkins, Criminal Law, pp. 476--500 (1957); Arnold, Criminal Attempts--The Rise and Fall of An Abstraction, 40 Yale L.J. ......
-
People v. Thousand
...223 Cal.App.2d 455, 35 Cal.Rptr. 859 (1963). 7. See Waters v. State, 2 Md.App. 216, 234 A.2d 147 (1967). 8. See Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okla.Crim.App., 1964); People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169 9. See State v. Guffey, 262 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App., 1953). 10. See Commonwealth v. Hen......
-
Ex parte Walls
...59 N.Y.2d 863, 452 N.E.2d 1255, 465 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1983); State v. Diephaus, 55 Ohio App.3d 90, 562 N.E.2d 523 (1989); Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okla.Crim.App.1964); Bandy v. State, 575 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn.1979); United States v. Johnson, 767 F.2d 1259 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Monas......
-
Breaking the law to enforce it: undercover police participation in crime.
...to place a greater value on legal form than on any substantive danger the defendant's actions posed for society."). (123.) Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863,870-71 (Okla. Crim. App. (124.) Id. at 867-68. (125.) MODEL PENAL CODE [sections] 5.01(1) (Proposed Official Draft 1962). (126.) MODEL PENA......
-
§ 27.07 Defense: Impossibility
...by false pretenses.[161] See Robbins, Note 127, supra, at 389-90.[162] E.g., People v. Jaffe, 78 N.E. 169 (N.Y. 1906); Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okla. Crim. App. 1964).[163] Trent v. Commonwealth, 156 S.E. 567, 569 (Va. 1931) (dictum).[164] E.g., State v. Taylor, 133 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. 193......
-
§ 27.07 DEFENSE: IMPOSSIBILITY
...by false pretenses.[161] . See Robbins, Note 127, supra, at 389-90.[162] . E.g., People v. Jaffe, 78 N.E. 169 (N.Y. 1906); Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okla. Crim. App. 1964).[163] . Trent v. Commonwealth, 156 S.E. 567, 569 (Va. 1931) (dictum).[164] . E.g., State v. Taylor, 133 S.W.2d 336 ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...497 (1954), 35 Bolsinger, State v., 709 N.W.2d 560 (Iowa 2006), 558 Bonjour, State v., 694 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 2005), 272 Booth v. State, 398 P.2d 863 (Okla. Crim. App. 1964), 382 Booth, Commonwealth v., 766 A.2d 843 (Pa. 2001), 473 Borchers, People v., 325 P.2d 97 (Cal. 1958), 501, 502 Boro v......