Meath v. State

• Decision Date: 05 April 1921
• Parties: MEATH v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

174 Wis. 80

182 N.W. 334

MEATH

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 5, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, St. Croix County; George Thompson, Judge.

Anthony Meath was convicted of having received, concealed, and aided in the concealment of a stolen automobile, and he brings error. Reversed.

August 3, 1920, one Vern Reynolds stole a Buick automobile at Menominee, Dunn county, Wis. He drove the car to Glenwood City, where he took with him one Higgins. The two drove the car toward New Richmond on the highway passing along the defendant's home a short distance outside New Richmond. The defendant, Meath, was not at home at the time, and the two drove the car further and met the defendant, who was driving his own automobile, and the two cars then went to Meath's home and stopped on the highway in front of his premises. Some conversation was then had between the three. Reynolds and Higgins then borrowed defendant's car to drive to Glenwood for the ostensible purpose of getting other tires to place upon the stolen automobile, purposing to return the same afternoon to defendant's place. After Reynolds and Higgins left, the defendant drove the car from the highway onto his own premises into his garage and closed the doors.

Reynolds and Higgins were met by the sheriff and deputy sheriff of Dunn county and the owner of the stolen automobile. Later in the afternoon Reynolds accompanied the sheriff, his deputy, and the owner of the car for the alleged purpose of finding the stolen car. They came to Meath's premises and made inquiry of him as to a Buick car. He at first denied having seen any, and then stated that there was such a car in his garage and that his car had been stolen. The garage was then opened and the car identified by the owner, and at about this time Reynolds admitted that he had stolen the car. He pleaded guilty and was thereupon sentenced for such theft shortly before the trial of this case. Defendant was tried under section 4417, Stats., for having received, concealed, and aided in the concealment of the stolen automobile.

In charging the jury the court said as follows:

“This last element (viz., guilty knowledge) does not necessarily call upon you to determine whether or not the defendant knew that Vern Reynolds had stolen the car, but it calls upon you to determine from all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence whether or not the defendant, at the time in question, knew or ought to have known that the automobile was stolen property. In other words, if the defendant, with intent to defraud the owner, received, concealed, or aided in the concealment of said property, then the question is this: Did the defendant at the time he so received, concealed, or aided in the concealment of said property, know that it was stolen property, or did he so receive, conceal, or aid in the concealment of said car under such facts and circumstances that he ought to have known that it was stolen? To satisfy this element of guilty knowledge, it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant actually knew that Vern Reynolds had stolen the car, but it is sufficient, so far as this element is concerned, if the state has convinced you and each of you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to defraud the owner, received, concealed, or aided in the concealment of said automobile under such facts and circumstances that he ought to have known that it was stolen.”

Defendant was found guilty and sentenced, and to review the judgment he sued out this writ of error.

Spencer Haven, of Hudson, for plaintiff in error.

William J. Morgan, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. T. Doar, Sp. Dist. Atty., of New Richmond, for the State.

ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1][2] The defendant in error was prosecuted and convicted for a violation of the following statute:

“Sec. 4417. Any person who shall buy, receive, conceal or aid in the concealment of stolen money, goods or property, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall receive the same punishment as is hereinbefore provided for the stealing of such money, goods or property; and in any prosecution for such offense it shall not be necessary to aver or prove that the...