Patton v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | A-8480. |
| Citation | 22 P.2d 116,54 Okla.Crim. 393 |
| Parties | PATTON v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Rehearing Denied May 26, 1933.
Exclusion of evidence was not error, since it appeared that when garage man went to defendant's home to make repairs on automobile another man was present, but that the other man said nothing about the repair of the automobile.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The possession of recently stolen property, supported by other incriminating circumstances, is sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction.
2. The court did not err in excluding certain testimony offered by the defendant as to the car being left at his home by Eubanks.
3. Where the accused has possession of recently stolen property and attempts to explain its possession, the burden of proving the truthfulness of his possession is on him, and even though it may be reasonable is a question of fact for the jury.
4. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Custer County; E. L. Mitchell, Judge.
Monte Patton was convicted of the crime of larceny of an automobile, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Fred Larue, of Arapho, and Mathers & Mathers, of Oklahoma City for plaintiff in error.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the defendant, was convicted of the larceny of an automobile, and sentenced to serve a term of six years in the state penitentiary at McAlester, and appeals.
The testimony on the part of the state tends to show that L. L Triplett, who lived about five miles northwest of Hydro, Okl., was the owner of an automobile, and while attending a picnic at Dripping Springs on the evening of the 7th of August, 1930, the car was stolen; on the 14th of August, 1930, the car was found in possession of the defendant, Monte Patton, in Weatherford, Okl.; the engine number had been changed between the time of its having been taken and the day it was found at Weatherford.
The evidence further tends to show that defendant was seen in possession of the car in Weatherford as early as August 11, 1930. There is no controversy in the record but that the car found in the possession of the defendant was the car belonging to L. L. Triplett, and that the same was stolen while Triplett was attending the picnic at Dripping Springs, August 7, 1930.
The defense interposed is an alibi; the defendant and several relatives testifying that on the evening of August 7, 1930, from 7 to 7:30 in the evening until 10:30 or 11, the defendant was visiting at the home of his mother-in-law, in Weatherford. The defendant also testified that the automobile was brought to his home by one S. B. Eubanks, whom the defendant had known in Enid for more than a year, on the 13th day of August, 1930; at the time Eubanks came to the home of the defendant, the defendant was not at home but returned shortly after Eubanks' arrival. Defendant's testimony further tends to show that the car, or some part of it, was on fire and he called Joy Roush, a garage man, and had him come to the house and fix the automobile so it would run.
Roush also testified in behalf of the defendant, stating that on August 14, 1930, defendant drove the car to his garage for the purpose of having repairs made. At the time Triplett found his car in the Roush garage the defendant was at the garage; later defendant returned to his home to get some wire to be used in repairing the car; the officers found the defendant at his home and arrested him. The foregoing is in substance the testimony presented at the trial.
Several errors have been assigned by the defendant as grounds for reversal of his case. It is first urged by defendant that his case should be reversed for the reason of certain remarks made by the special prosecutor in his closing argument. The remarks of the special counsel complained of by the defendant is not incorporated in the record in full. The record shows that the special counsel, when defendant's counsel objected, replied: "Well, I am just answering you, Fred, about what you said, that he would be crazy if he had done that." As the entire argument is not incorporated in the record, it is apparent that the court overruled the defendant's objection to the argument, for the reason that the special counsel was replying to the argument that had been made by the counsel for the defendant.
In Payne v. State, 21 Okl. Cr. 416, 209 P. 334, this court said: "Where the record is incomplete touching upon alleged disparaging remarks made in the closing argument, this court will presume that the trial court ruled correctly." Ussaery v. State, 22 Okl. Cr. 397, 212 P. 137; Wilson v. State, 24 Okl. Cr. 332, 217 P. 885.
After a careful consideration of the record, and in view of the holdings of this court in many opinions, the court did not err in overruling the objections of the defendant to the closing remarks of the special prosecutor.
It is next urged that the trial court erred in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darnell v. State
...to be considered and given such weight by the jury as it may see fit. McDonald v. State, 59 Okl.Cr. 318, 58 P.2d 345; Patton v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 393, 22 P.2d 116. Whether the explanation of the possession of a recently stolen automobile is reasonable is a question of fact for the jury to d......
-
Ballard v. State
... ... that the evidence only showed possession of recently stolen ... property, and was, therefore, insufficient to warrant a ... conviction ... This ... question has been before this court many times. The cases ... cited by defendant to sustain his contention: Patton v ... State, 54 Okl.Cr. 393, 22 P.2d 116, 117; ... [95 P.2d 241] Blumhoff v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 4, 231 P. 900; ... Walker v. State, 62 Okl.Cr. 196, 70 P.2d 1099; ... Shaw v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 511, 165 P. 617; Dickey ... v. State, 62 Okl.Cr. 72, 70 P.2d 127; Cheeves v ... State, 18 Okl.Cr ... ...
-
Heglin v. State
... ... stolen property is admissible in a larceny case. Gourley ... v. State, 49 Okl. Cr. 24, 292 P. 873; Brown v ... State, 50 Okl. Cr. 103, 297 P. 303; Buck v ... State, 50 Okl. Cr. 148, 3 P.2d 747; Glenn v. State ... (Okl. Cr. App.) 5 P. (2d) 767; Patton v. State (Okl ... Cr. App.) 22 P.2d 116 ... The ... precise question has never been passed on by this court, but ... the courts of other states have held that possession of other ... stolen goods is admissible as tending to establish that the ... defendant received with ... ...