Cummings v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 453 |
| Citation | 20 Ariz. 176,178 P. 776 |
| Parties | C. L. CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Cochise. A. C. Lockwood, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr. W G. Gilmore, for Appellant.
Mr Wiley E. Jones, Attorney General, Mr. W. P. Geary and Mr. L B. Whitney, Assistant Attorneys General, and Mr. John F Ross, County Attorney, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, and appeals. The information filed in the case charges that the defendant "did . . . wilfully and unlawfully purchase from Miguel Galvez metal and junk, he, the said Galvez, being at the time of the purchase of said metal and junk by the said C. L. Cummings, a person under the age of 16 years."
Evidence of the purchase by the defendant of metal and junk from boys under 16 years of age upon occasions other than that charged in the information was permitted to go to the jury by the court. The defendant complains of this ruling. Under the facts adduced, this action of the court was not erroneous.
The testimony tends to establish that the defendant was, or had been, a junk dealer engaged in buying and selling cast-off pieces of metal, brass, copper, wire, etc., and that on the occasion charged he bought from the boy, Galvez, who was under 16 years of age, a faucet and a piece of rubber tube and some lamp burners. The defendant denied the purchase of these articles, and alleged that he was formerly engaged in the electric light business, and that, owing to the removal of the plant to different places and its final destruction by fire, copper wire used about the plant became scattered, and that he had arranged with the boy, Galvez, to gather up this wire and bring it to him, for which service he paid the boy a small stipend.
The evidence of other purchases was admissible for the purpose of showing that the transaction with the boy, Galvez, was a purchase in accordance with a system, plan or scheme adopted by the defendant in the conduct of his business in reference to the purchase of junk in violation of the statute. No attempt was made to convict the defendant of making the other purchases, and no evidence was offered for that purpose. Furthermore, the court in its charge to the jury very prudently limited the evidence of the other purchases as being available by the jury only for the purpose of determining whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhine v. State
...so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the other, Vigil v. State, 33 Ariz. 51, 262 P. 14; Cummings v. State, 20 Ariz. 176, 178 P. 776, and the state contends that the facts of this case bring it clearly within this exception. It occurs to us that this position is ......
-
State v. Parker
...so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the other, Vigil v. State, 33 Ariz. 51, 262 P. 14; Cummings v. State, 20 Ariz. 176, 178 P. 776, and the state contends that the facts of this case bring it clearly within this exception. It occurs to us that this position is ......
-
State v. Martinez, 985
... ... that where the evidence of similar offenses tends to show a ... system, plan or scheme embracing the commission of two or ... more crimes so related to each other that the proof of one ... tends to establish the other, such evidence then becomes both ... relevant and admissible. Cummings v. State, 20 Ariz ... 176, 178 P. 776; Vigil v. State, 33 Ariz. 51, 262 P ... 14; Taylor v. State, supra; State v. Pierce, 59 ... Ariz. 411, 129 P.2d 916; State v. Byrd, 62 Ariz. 24, ... 152 P.2d 669. See also II Wigmore on Evidence (Third Edition) ... Sec. 304. This court, in the case of ... ...
-
Greve v. State
... ... sometimes, for example, such that the accused may claim he ... had no knowledge that his act was wrong, as where he is ... charged with receiving stolen property, in which case to ... prove knowledge it may be shown that on other occasions he ... had received stolen property. Cummings v ... State, 20 Ariz. 176, 178 P. 776. The present case ... involves, not proof of knowledge nor motive nor malice nor ... intent, for whoever it was that attempted to rob Tate ... indicated by his acts and the circumstances that he had all ... these. Nor does it involve plan or system, in ... ...