Dalzell v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1898 |
| Parties | DALZELL v. STATE |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Information filed in district court, April 7, 1897.
ERROR to the District Court for Johnson County. HON. JOSEPH L STOTTS, Judge.
H. J Dalzell, was informed against in the district court for Johnson County, for the larceny of one head of neat cattle of the value of five dollars and upwards, was convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He prosecuted error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
W. S. Metz and E. E. Lonabaugh, for plaintiff in error.
It is elementary that in all criminal cases proof of the corpus delicti must be made. There is no proof that the prosecuting witness ever lost an animal by theft, either by plaintiff in error or by any other person. (1 Whart. Cr. L., Sec. 745; Ruloff v. People, 18 N. Y.; U. S. v. Searcy, 26 F. 435; State v. Keeler, 28 Ia. 551; Taylor v. State, 35 Tex. 97; Smith's case, 21 Gratt., 809; Stocking v. State, 7 Ind. 326.) The instructions were erroneous for failing to inform the jury that the guilt must be established by the evidence in the case.
J. A. Van Orsdel, Attorney-General, for the State.
There is no question in this case but that one head of neat cattle was killed at the time and place alleged in the information. The question at issue is as to the identification of the animal. Such identification may be established by circumstantial evidence; and upon the evidence the jury was authorized to find that the animal killed was the one in question belonging to the one named in the information as owner. The instructions taken together sufficiently informed the jury that the defendant's guilt must be established by the evidence in the case. (3 Greenleaf, 31.)
The plaintiff in error was found guilty by a jury upon an information charging him with the larceny of one head of neat cattle, the property of Hulda E. Williams, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of two years.
The plaintiff in error contends that it does not appear from the evidence that any crime has been committed, either by defendant (plaintiff in error) or any other person; that proof of the corpus delicti is wholly lacking; that there is no proof that the prosecuting witness ever lost an animal by the theft of the defendant or any other person, and that there is no proof that the animal claimed to be killed was the property of the prosecuting witness.
The evidence shows that the prosecuting witness owned a steer which ranged in the vicinity of defendant's ranch, and which bore her brand, on the left ribs, and a cross on the left hip; also her ear-mark which is described as "a half under crop on the left ear." That about the first of December, 1896, her foreman searched for this animal for two days upon its accustomed range, and was unable to find it, and it was not afterward found. About the third of December some of the witnesses found where a steer had been killed about half to three quarters of a mile from the ranch of the defendant, the head, a part of the hide, and some other parts of the animal remaining upon the ground partially covered with snow. The part of the hide where the brand of the prosecuting witness was accustomed to be put on was absent, a strip running the full length of the hide having been cut out. The left ear and the horns were cut off. The ear was found and showed that it had been cut off close to the head and also that a piece of the ear had been freshly cut off. The foreman testified that the head and hide "corresponded" with the missing animal, but that he could not state positively that it was the same, the brand being absent. The defendant upon being informed that an animal had been killed there, said he killed it himself, and that it was a cow of his own; that he had cut the hide, having occasion to use a piece of it; that he had also sawed off the horns so that he could handle the animal more conveniently, but that he had not cut off the ear. There was testimony also that the part of the hide cut out was not the part where the brand of the defendant was usually placed. There were many other circumstances tending with greater or less directness to prove the guilt of the defendant, which it is now unnecessary to rehearse.
The specific objection most relied upon by plaintiff in error is that the corpus delicti is not proven. The necessity for satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti has been most dwelt upon in homicide cases for obvious reasons and eminent judges have held that they would not permit a verdict to stand without direct proof of the death as by the finding and identification of the body, or of criminal violence adequate to produce death, and exerted in such a manner as to account for the disappearance of the body. The necessity for the greatest care in this regard is emphasized by the fact that convictions and executions have occurred, and the supposed victim of the homicide has afterward appeared alive. At the same time the number of cases is no doubt much greater, where after conclusive proof of the murder punishment has been inflicted upon the wrong person, entirely innocent of the crime. The injustice is not greater in the one case than the other. And the degree of certainty required is the same in both cases, or upon both branches of the case; that is, the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. The distinction is as to the character of evidence which is deemed necessary and sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. In larceny it is also of course necessary that the corpus delicti should be established, as it is clearly not permissible that any one should be adjudged guilty of larceny until it is shown that a larceny has been committed. The corpus delicti in homicide is constituted of two elements; that the alleged victim is dead,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
... ... information. People v. Garcia, (Cal. App.) 101 ... Cal.App. 213, 281 P. 508. But that point need not necessarily ... be shown by testimony independent of that of the identity of ... the offender or of his guilt. Richey v. State, 28 ... Wyo. 117, 131, 201 P. 154, 205 P. 304; Dalzell v ... State, 7 Wyo. 450, 53 P. 297. We seem to have a peculiar ... situation in this case. No one saw an automobile strike the ... deceased, and the proximate cause of his death and the ... corpus delicti seem to depend primarily upon the ... question of the identity of the offender, for ... ...
-
Alcala v. State
...effect that it consists of (1) death and (2) the criminal agency of another. We adhered to that rule in the early case of Dalzell v. State, 7 Wyo. 450, 53 P. 297, 298. It must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bennett v. State, Wyo., 377 P.2d 634, 635. I agree also that such proof m......
-
State v. Flory
...court in Harris v. State, 23 Wyo. 487. Where all of the instructions considered together fairly state the law, it is sufficient. Dalzell v. State, 7 Wyo. 450; Loy v. 26 Wyo. 381; Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81; Downing v. State, 11 Wyo. 86; Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351; State v. Garth, (Mo.) 65......
-
Richey v. State
... ... that, to warrant a conviction, there should have been some ... different or additional evidence to prove that the cattle ... were lost by a felonious taking from the owner, that is, of ... the corpus delicti ... Such a taking must, of course, ... be proved, but, as said in Dalzell v. State, 7 Wyo ... 450, 53 P. 297, "the evidence relied upon to establish ... the corpus delicti in larceny is not necessarily, or ... indeed usually, distinct from that relied upon to identify ... the offender and [28 Wyo. 132] prove the guilty intent." ... Quoting further from the same ... ...