Reed v. State
| Citation | 297 P. 327,50 Okla.Crim. 287 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | A-7758. |
| Parties | REED v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Person assisting thief in asportation and disposal of stolen property, with knowledge that such property was stolen, is equally guilty of larceny.
One who joins with a thief and assists in the asportation and disposal of stolen property, knowing at the time he does so that the other acting with him is in the act of carrying away the property of another, is equally guilty of the larceny.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Testimony of private citizens regarding discovery of stolen goods in defendant's automobile held admissible, where witnesses knew goods to be stolen (Comp. St. 1921, § 2477).
Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Hal Johnson, Judge.
Dave Reed was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. L Johnson, of Chandler, for plaintiff in error.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Lincoln county of the crime of grand larceny, and his punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one year and one day.
The evidence of the state was that the defendant, together with Clarence S. Evans and Ed. Naff, left the city of Chandler in Reed's automobile at about 10 o'clock in the morning and drove to the town of Prague, where Evans and Naff entered the general store of one Thomas, while Reed stayed in the car which was parked near the store; that, while Naff had a clerk showing him shoes in the back part of the store, Evans stole nineteen pieces of silk underwear; that in making the trip from the store to the automobile Evans dropped one piece on the sidewalk in front of the store, and that he placed the eighteen pieces so stolen in the car, under the back cushion, while the defendant sat in the front seat; that none of these stolen articles were wrapped; that one White, who had a store in Prague, saw the piece of stolen underwear drop on the sidewalk, picked it up, and carried it to the Thomas store, and there learned that none of it had been sold; that, before Thomas and White could reach defendant's car, he and Evans drove about four blocks; that Thomas and White followed this car out to the end of the street and back to the front of the Thomas Hotel, where Naff was standing; that White and Thomas drove up by the side of defendant's car and ordered them to get out, which they refused to do; that White reached in and lifted the cushion in the back seat and there discovered the stolen underwear which had been taken out of the Thomas store, and which White and Thomas had seen put in defendant's automobile.
It is admitted by counsel for defendant that Evans and Naff stole the underwear from the Thomas store, but it is contended that the evidence against the defendant is wholly insufficient to sustain the conviction.
In the case of Good v. State, 21 Okl. Cr. 328, 207 P. 565, 566, 29 A. L. R. 1029, this court said: "One who joins with a thief and assists in the asportation and disposal of stolen property, knowing at the time he does so that the other acting with him is in the act of carrying away the property of another is equally guilty of the larceny." Brown v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 678, 126 P. 263; Reed v. State, 22 Okl. Cr. 141, 210 P. 311.
Under the law above quoted, it was for the jury to determine whether or not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial