Buck v. State
Decision Date | 26 May 1943 |
Docket Number | A--10172. |
Parties | BUCK v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Evidence of the trailing of human beings by bloodhounds is admissible as a circumstance to corroborate other testimony offered by the State.
2. The bloodhound in question must be shown to have been trained to follow human beings by their tracks and to have been tested as to its accuracy in trailing upon one or more occasions.
3. The evidence of the acts of bloodhounds in following a trail may be received merely as a circumstance or corroborating evidence against a person toward whom other circumstances point as being guilty of the commission of the crime charged.
4. Preliminary to the introduction of this evidence, the court should hear the testimony of witnesses, preferably out of the presence of the jury, as to the blood, training and experience of the dog, and determine as a matter of law whether it is such as to permit its introduction before the jury.
5. It should be shown that the dog so trained and tested was laid on the trail, whether visible or not, concerning which testimony has been admitted, at a point where the circumstances tend clearly to show that the guilty party has been or upon a track which such circumstances indicate has been made by him.
6. The verdict of a jury based partially upon circumstantial evidence will not be set aside unless the court finds that the evidence as a whole is insufficient to justify the verdict rendered.
Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; Arthur Cochran, Judge.
G. R Buck was convicted of arson, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. M Carter and D. E. Ashmore, both of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., Jess L. Pullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jack Pitchford, Co. Atty., of Okmulgee, for defendant in error.
Defendant G. R. Buck, was charged in the District Court of Okmulgee County with the crime of arson, was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the State Penitentiary, and has appealed.
The only contention presented in the brief of defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence, and that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty.
This case may be said to rest almost wholly upon circumstantial evidence. It presents to this Court for the first time the question of the admissibility in evidence of the trailing of one by bloodhounds. We find that this question has heretofore been presented to the highest appellate courts of many states, and that some consideration has been given thereto by textbook writers. However, this Court has never been called upon to consider the question, although the use of bloodhounds at the State Penitentiary has been in vogue for many years.
An investigation of the authorities has been most interesting and profitable. The earliest case in this country in which consideration was given to the question was that of Hodge v. State, 98 Ala. 10, 13 So. 385, 39 Am.St.Rep. 17. In that case the death penalty was upheld, and the evidence of tracking by the dog to defendant's home was sustained as competent evidence. Since this case in 1893, many courts have passed upon the question, and by the great weight of authority it has been held that the evidence is admissible under certain rules and conditions, as will be hereinafter stated.
Among the states upholding the rule are Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana; and the following texts are here cited: 16 C.J. 564; 8 R.C.L. 177, 184; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 646, p. 988; and Elliott on Evidence.
The states, some of which recognize that in some cases the evidence might be admissible, yet refuse to follow the rule are Nebraska, Illinois and Indiana, and one case from Iowa. Brott v. State, 70 Neb. 395, 97 N.W. 593, 63 L.R.A. 789; People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 Ill. 411, 104 N.E. 804, Ann.Cas.1915A, 1171; Ruse v. State, 186 Ind. 237, 115 N.E. 778, L.R.A.1917E, 726; State v. Grba, 196 Iowa 241, 194 N.W. 250.
In the early case of State v. Thomas Hall, 4 Ohio Dec. 147, a history of the bloodhound is given as follows:
Also in the case of Blair v. Commonwealth, 181 Ky. 218, 204 S.W. 67, 68, in which a beautiful tribute is paid to the dog, where it is said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Michaux
...denied, 404 U.S. 956, 92 S.Ct. 322, 30 L.Ed.2d 273 (1971); State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969 (1907); Buck v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 17, 138 P.2d 115 (1943); State v. Harris, 25 Or.App. 71, 547 P.2d 1394 (1976); State v. Brown, 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21 (1916); Copley v. State, 153 T......
-
State v. Streeper
...denied, 404 U.S. 956, 92 S.Ct. 322, 30 L.Ed.2d 273 (1971); State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969 (1907); Buck v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 17, 138 P.2d 115 (1943); State v. Harris, 25 Or.App. 71, 547 P.2d 1394 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 52 Pa.Super. 272 (1913); State v. Brown, 103 S......
-
WINFREY v. The State of Tex.
...(1978); State v. Cheatham, 458 S.W.2d 336, 339 (Mo.1970); State v. Green, 210 La. 157, 26 So.2d 487, 489 (1946); Buck v. State, 77 Okla.Crim. 17, 138 P.2d 115, 123 (1943); Copley v. State, 153 Tenn. 189, 281 S.W. 460, 461 (1926). Like our sister courts across the country, we now hold that s......
-
People v. Centolella
...dog and the location of the beginning of the trail out of the presence of the jury in accordance with the suggestion in Buck v. State (1943) 77 Okl.Cr. 17, 138 P.2d 115. ...