Hatfield v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | A-7641. |
| Citation | 292 P. 1058,49 Okla.Crim. 41 |
| Parties | HATFIELD v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Venue does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; where reasonable inferences arise from circumstances proved that offense was committed in county charged, venue is sufficiently proved; evidence in prosecution for larceny of calf held sufficiently to prove venue.
The venue does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There must be some proof of venue, but, where facts and circumstances are proven from which reasonable and rationable inferences arise that the offense was committed in the county charged, the proof of venue will be sufficient.
It is within trial court's sound discretion whether to exclude witnesses under the rule.
The exclusion of witnesses under the rule is not an absolute right, but rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. There is nothing in the record to show that the court in denying the rule to the defendant abused its discretion.
It is sufficient if evidence corroborating accomplice tends to connect defendant with commission of crime without directly doing so (Comp. St. 1921, § 2701).
Evidence corroborative of an accomplice need not directly connect the defendant with the commission of the crime; it is sufficient if it tends to do so.
Evidence corroborating testimony of alleged accomplice held sufficient to sustain conviction for grand larceny of calf (Comp. St. 1921, § 2701).
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; Geo. C. Crump, Judge.
R. A Hatfield was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Pryor & Stokes, Hugh Sandlin, and Hamilton & Hamilton, all of Holdenville, for plaintiff in error.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted in the district court of Hughes county, of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary at McAlester. From which judgment and sentence the defendant, after perfecting the record appealed to this court.
The substance of the state's evidence is as follows: Julia Scott stated she knew the defendant, Russ Hatfield; she lost a calf on or about February 26, 1929; she did not know whether the hide found in the field of the defendant was the hide from her calf, as she did not see the hide.
Mose Scott testified his stepmother, Julia Scott, lost a calf in February; "I found a hide in the edge of the defendants field on Wednesday morning; the calf had been missing since Monday night; the dogs had been dragging the hide around; Dobie Grant went with me to where the hide was." Willmott Scott testified he was with Mose when he found the hide, and he saw where the calf had been butchered. On cross-examination witness stated the dogs had been dragging the hide around, and that the hide belonged to the calf Julia Scott missed.
Other witnesses testified to seeing the hide, and to the furrows having been plowed, looked like to cover up the hide, and that the dogs had been dragging the hide around. Manuel Lavalley, who was an officer, testified he searched the defendant's house, but did not find any fresh meat in the house; that the hide was found a quarter of a mile from the defendant's home; the defendant did not make any statement to him.
Buddie Grant testified he knew the defendant and Julia Scott; he saw the hide after it had been found and the defendant asked him not to say anything about them cooking meat down there. Dobie Grant testified he was jointly charged with the defendant Hatfield with the larceny of the calf; at the time this calf was taken he lived on the Hatfield farm; that he and Hatfield stole the calf together, and he sold a dollar's worth of the meat; the defendant Hatfield shot the calf with a target rifle, and cut its throat; he was some distance on the hill, and it was dark. The witness admitted he had been convicted of larceny and had served a term in the penitentiary.
The defendant denies he had anything to do with the taking of the calf, or killing it, or that he had any knowledge that it had been stolen; or that he plowed the furrows in the field for the purpose of covering up the hide it was claimed by the state's witnesses was found. The defendant stated he was in Holdenville the day the calf is alleged to have been stolen, and that he had nothing to do with the taking of the calf and did not get Dobie Grant to sell any of the meat; none of the meat was cooked at his house; he had been advised that Jim Larney paid Dobie Grant to testify this defendant was implicated.
Hayes Wright testified he did not give Dobie Grant permission to use his car on the 26th day of February, 1929, and when the car was taken by Dobie Grant the same was reported to the officers. This is, in substance, the testimony.
The defendant has assigned six errors alleged to have been committed by the court in the trial of the case....
To continue reading
Request your trial