Camp v. People

• Decision Date: 24 September 1928
• Docket Number: 12120.
• Citation: 84 Colo. 403,270 P. 869
• Parties: CAMP v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

270 P. 869

84 Colo. 403

CAMP v. PEOPLE.

No. 12120.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

September 24, 1928

Error to District Court, Conejos County; Jesse C. Wiley, Judge.

Dave Camp and his wife were convicted of buying and receiving stolen sheep knowing them to have been stolen, and named defendant brings error.

Reversed.

John I. Palmer, of Saguache, and J. H. Thomas, of Antonito, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Wm. W. Gaunt, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.

CAMPBELL J.

An information was filed in the district court of Conejos county which charges that Dave Camp and his wife, Nettie Camp bought and received 42 head of sheep, the property of Emelio Rivera, knowing at the time that they had been stolen from the owner by Urbano Muniz, of whom the defendants made the purchase, and Daniel Quintana. The jury found both defendants guilty and stated the number of sheep stolen to be 42 head as charged and their value to be $336. In the verdict the jury recommended to the court 'to extend extreme leniency to the defendants Dave Camp and Nettie Camp.' The court sentenced the defendant Dave Camp to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 1 year nor more than 15 months and deferred sentence of the defendant Nettie until the first day of the next term of court. Defendant Dave Camp alone is prosecuting this writ of error. The principal errors assigned are to rulings of the court restricting defendant's right of cross-examination of the people's principal witness Muniz, the confessed thief. Only these will be considered, as we think reversible error was committed.

The theory of the prosecution, as we read the record, was, and is, that the defendant Dave Camp induced Muniz, who was a minor, to steal sheep and bring them to the Camp farm, and he (Camp) would buy them. Muniz testified that Dave Camp said to him: 'You get some sheep and bring them here and I will buy them, no matter if they are stolen.' Muniz testified that this statement was made to him on the 9th or 10th day of December, 1926, and acting thereon he and Quintana went out on the public road, found 20 head of sheep there, drove them to Camp's farm, and sold them to the defendants. On the next day the defendant Nettie gave him a check on the purchase price for $30, and on January 24, 1927 a second check for $10, and on January 25 a third check for $30, and later when Muniz was confined in the county jail, the date not being mentioned, a fourth check for $5, a total of $75, being $25 less than the agreed purchase price of $5 per head of the 20 sheep delivered. Muniz testified positively that this one transaction in December, 1926, was the only sale of sheep made by him to defendants, or either of them, at any time and that no other than the four checks above described were ever given to him by either defendant for sheep bought or for any other purpose.

In her testimony the defendant Nettie testified that in February, 1926, more than 11 months before the time that Muniz testifies that he sold to the defendants the 20 head of sheep, Muniz came to the Camp ranch or farm with 2 sheep in an automobile and offered to sell them to her. Because of his apparent youth Mrs. Camp hesitated to buy of him, believing him to be a minor, although he said he was 21 years of age, and she told him then that she would not buy the sheep without his father's consent. He went away and shortly returned with a writing purporting to be that of his father, consenting to the sale of these sheep; the writing stating that the son was a good boy and that he would bring the money to the father. Mrs. Camp then bought the sheep and paid him for them. Unquestionably this paper writing, purporting to have been signed by the father of Urbano Muniz, was a forgery, the father testifying that he did not sign it, although we do not find in the record that the son Urbano denied that he gave the paper to defendant Nettie as the consent of the father to the sale. There is no question but that the sheep in question were stolen by Urbano Muniz and Quintana, and that they were the property of Emelio Rivera. Some of the sheep purchased by the defendants remained for some weeks or months upon their home farm, and some of them upon another ranch property which they owned some distance away. There was no attempt made by defendants to sell them or hide them away or take them to a different part of the country. Some months later, when Mr. Rivera, the owner, learned that some of his sheep were at the ranch of the defendants, he came there to see them, and the defendants made no objection to the search and examination by Rivera to ascertain if any of his sheep were on their ranch. Later these sheep were found, and they were taken from the premises of the defendants to Rivera's own pasture, and he still retains them.

Bearing in mind that the people's witness Muniz had testified positively that the transaction in December,...