Ex parte Seyfried
| Decision Date | 09 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 8003,8003 |
| Parties | Ex parte SEYFRIED. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Vernon K. Smith, Boise, for appellant.
Robert E. Smylie, Atty. Gen. of Idaho, Edward J. Aschenbrener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Blaine F. Evans, Prosecuting Atty., Ada County, and J. Charles Blanton, Dep. Prosecuting Atty., Boise, for respondent.
Petitioner was charged in a criminal complaint filed in the Probate Court of Ada County with the crime of burglary, allegedly committed in the nighttime. A preliminary examination was had and petitioner was held to answer. Petitioner was committed to the sheriff in default of bail, and sought his release on the ground that there was no evidence introduced in said preliminary examination which proved, or even tended to prove, that petitioner entered the dwelling he was charged with burglariously entering with the intent to commit larceny or any felony. On a trial in the district court the learned trial judge quashed the writ and remanded petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. Petitioner appealed.
At the preliminary examination the following facts, among others, were shown: On the evening of March 10, 1953, the sheriff of Ada County and some of the Boise police stationed themselves in or near the home of Fritz Bock. They were there at the request of said owner who had noticed someone had been 'casing' the place. Bock and family were not at home. About 8:15 p. m. a car stopped in front of the Bock home, and two men got out of the car and approached the house. One of them knocked on the door and rang the bell, and shouted: 'Is anyone home?' Someone, presumably petitioner, pried open a locked window and entered the darkened house. This person proceeded to the back door with the aid of a flashlight, opened the door and two men came back through the house, one carrying a flashlight. One of the officers stationed in the house turned on the lights and arrested the petitioner inside the residence. Petitioner was wearing cloth gloves and carried a screwdriver and flashlight. He stated to the officers: 'I have cased this house at least thirty-five times', and further stated he should have suspected something was wrong, as a light that was usually left burning was turned off. One of the officers told petitioner: 'There was no safe there'. Petitioner replied he was not looking for a safe and made no explanation of his forcible entry. Under these facts he was held to answer for entering a dwelling house in the nighttime with intent to commit larceny.
Appellant in his brief submits the following proposition for determination:
'At a preliminary hearing must there be actual positive proof of the corpus delicti of an offense itself before an accused may be held for trial in the district court?'
Where a dwelling house is broken and entered in the nighttime and no lawful motive or purpose is shown or appears, or any satisfactory or reasonable explanation given for such breaking and entering, the presumption arises that the breaking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Melton
...v. Eppich, 342 Mass. 487, 174 N. E.2d 31 (1961); Commonwealth v. Ronchetti, 333 Mass. 78, 128 N.E.2d 334 (1955); Ex. parte Seyfried, 74 Idaho 467, 264 P.2d 685 (1953); Nichols v. State, 207 Miss. 291, 42 So.2d 201 (1949); Drennan v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 348, 102 P.2d 952 (1940); Vickery v. Sta......
-
State v. Oldham
...by his acts and conduct, and such is the usual and customary mode of proving intent.' (at p. 8, 287 P.2d at p. 429) Ex parte Seyfried, 74 Idaho 467, 470, 264 P.2d 685 (1953); State v. Kleier, 69 Idaho 278, 206 P.2d 513 (1949). See also State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254 (1929); S......
-
State v. Polson
...and such is the usual and customary mode of proving intent.' State v. Kleier, 69 Idaho 278, 206 P.2d 513. In ex parte Seyfried, 74 Idaho 467, 264 P.2d 685, 687, which was a prosecution for a burglary, it is 'It is sufficient to show the essential unlawful intent when the entry was made by c......
-
State v. Williams
...The order dismissing the persistent violator charge is affirmed. WALTERS, C. J., and SWANSTROM, J., concur. 1 In Ex parte Seyfried, 74 Idaho 467, 264 P.2d 685 (1953), our Supreme Court mentioned both an inference and a presumption of burglary, arising from evidence of forced entry. Although......
-
Lost Legatee Beneficiary Claims
...and the lawyer did not stand in privity. The legatee argued that the court should adopt the reasoning in Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.21d 583, 264 P.2d 685, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821 (1961), which stated the so-called "California rule" for malpractice suits in negligence to allow a lost legatee to assert a......