People v. Betts
| Decision Date | 17 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 24286.,24286. |
| Citation | 11 N.E.2d 942,367 Ill. 499 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BETTS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Pike County; A. Clay Williams, Judge.
Everett Betts was convicted of larceny of three heifers, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Merrill H. Johnston, State's Atty., of Pittsfield, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Winthrop B. Anderson and Edwin Johnston, both of Pittsfield, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Everett Betts, was convicted in the circuit court of Pike county of the larceny of three heifers, and the cause is here for a review.
Charles Williams was the owner of the heifers. They were kept in his pasture, which was about a half mile wide north and south and extended west to the Mississippi river. The pasture was inclosed by a barbed wire fence consisting of three wires; the lowest wire was one foot from the ground, the highest about four feet, and the other wire halfway between them. The fence had been repaired during the latter part of July or August. The defendant's farm, also on the Mississippi river, was about three miles away, being separated from the Williams farm by another large farm. Williams and his wife testified that they saw the heifers in their pasture about the last part of August or the first of September and that they did not go to the pasture again until October 16, at which time the heifers were gone. Defendant testified that he first saw the heifers in his pasture sometime in August; that he did not know whose they were, and that he always waited for the owners to come after stray cattle, instead of inquiring for the owner. Several other people kept their cattle in defendant's pasture for hire. One of them was Guy Crowder, who, with his son Carl, was previously tried and acquitted on a charge of larceny of the same heifers. Williams and his wife testified that they asked defendant, about a day or two after they missed the heifers, if he had seen three heifers and that he said he had not. Mrs. Williams referred to them as ‘stray heifers' and testified that she told defendant that if he saw them wandering around to let them know. Defendant denied that Mrs. Williams asked him about the heifers at all, and said that Williams asked him, after the heifers had been disposed of in October, if he had seen ‘any cow’ and defendant told him he had not, not thinking about these three heifers.
The evidence is conflicting as to the disposal of the heifers. Defendant testified that Guy Crowder owed him $50 pasture rent after deducting a $10 difference in threshing accounts; that Crowder asked if he could take the heifers to St. Louis and sell them to get the money with which to pay defendant; that he told Crowder they did not belong to him, but were ‘strays' and that he would have nothing to do with it. Crowder and his son Carl testified that defendant sold the heifers to Guy without saying anything about the ownership. The Crowders hauled the heifers away from defendant's farm on Saturday, October 5. They took them to the farm of Tony Arth, near Collinsville, arriving about 3 a. m. Sunday. On that day they sold them to Arth for $66 and a few days later paid defendant $50. The uncontradicted testimony of eight witnesses shows defendant's good reputation for truth and honesty.
One of the numerous errors assigned is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of larceny. It was incumbent on the People to prove the corpus delicti, one element of which was that the heifers were lost to the owner through a felonious stealing. People v. Wallace, 303 Ill. 504, 135 N.E. 723. While the corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the fact that the heifers were in defendant's pasture soon after they disappeared from the Williams pasture is not, of itself, enough to prove they had been stolen, or that defendant had any connection with it. The exclusive, unexplained possession of recently stolen property may raise an inference of guilt sufficient to authorize a conviction for larceny in the absence of other evidence raising a reasonable doubt of guilt. People v. Adamek, 354 Ill. 551, 188 N.E. 743;People v. Lawson, 351 Ill. 457, 184 N.E. 606;People v. Stone, 349 Ill. 52, 181 N.E. 648;People v. Lehner, 335 Ill. 424, 167 N.E. 20;People v. Graves, 331 Ill. 268, 162 N.E. 839. The rule is not applicable to this case. In the first place, it was not proved that the heifers were stolen from the Williams pasture. There is no evidence as to how they got out of there. While the testimony shows the fence had been repaired in July or August, there is no testimony to show that it was in good repair when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. DeBartolo
...The proof of the necessary intention is an essential element of the offense of theft as defendant argues. (People v. Betts (1937), 367 Ill. 499, 502--503, 11 N.E.2d 942.) But more persuasive, in our view, is the argument of the State that the circumstances are sufficient to compel the concl......
-
People v. Loveless
...to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Bergner owned a property interest superior to that of the defendant. (People v. Betts (1937), 367 Ill. 499, 11 N.E.2d 942; People v. Maruda (1924), 314 Ill. 536, 145 N.E. 696; People v. Joy (1976), 44 Ill.App.3d 349, 3 Ill.Dec. 101, 358 N.E.2d 101......
-
People v. Joy
...ring from the defendant and there is nothing in the record to support this inference. The case at hand is similar to People v. Betts (1937), 367 Ill. 499, 11 N.E.2d 942. There defendant was charged with the theft of heifers from a neighbor's pasture. The court concluded that the fact that t......
-
People v. Waggoner
...the assistance of the Mick family by the payment of $40, and took away hogs of the value of $150. The rule laid down in People v. Betts, 367 Ill. 499, 11 N.E.2d 942, applies. We there held that in the case of lost goods the finder may be guilty of larceny if he intends to deprive the owner ......