Hamilton v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | A-4247. |
| Parties | HAMILTON ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Facts and circumstances proved in a criminal prosecution must not only be consistent with and point to the guilt of accused but they must be inconsistent with his innocence.
In a prosecution for petit larceny, circumstantial evidence which, at most, if unexplained, would only raise a suspicion of guilt, held insufficient to support conviction.
Appeal from County Court, Dewey County.
Joe Hamilton and another were convicted of petit larceny, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
W. P Hickok, of Taloga, for plaintiffs in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
Appeal from judgment of conviction rendered in county court of Dewey county January 6, 1922. Petition in error with case-made attached filed in this court March 16, 1922. Information charged the theft of one overcoat, the property of Leonard Walker, of the value of $10, alleged to have been committed by plaintiffs in error on November 16, 1921. Each plaintiff in error fined $25 and costs of prosecution. The principal contention is that evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction.
This conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, and an examination of the record discloses that the evidence adduced by the state against plaintiffs in error is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule that the facts and circumstances proved must not only be consistent with and point to guilt, but that they must be inconsistent with innocence.
The plaintiffs in error were high school students attending a basket ball game at another school in the county, and left their Ford car parked on or near the school grounds; the game was played after dark in the school building, and the overcoat was taken some time during the game. Plaintiffs in error discovered the coat in the car the next morning, and before leaving for their home made inquiry to discover its owner, and gave information that they were in possession of it. Not discovering who the owner was, they took the coat with them, and upon their return to their own school the next day, and while in school, their car was searched, and the coat discovered under the back seat, where they had put it. There is no evidence to connect these plaintiffs in error with the original taking of the coat. The conviction is based...
To continue reading
Request your trial