Roberts v. State, A--15273
| Decision Date | 06 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. A--15273,A--15273 |
| Citation | 479 P.2d 623 |
| Parties | Arnett ROBERTS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Pushmataha County; Howard Phillips, judge.
Arnett Roberts was convicted of the crime of Larceny of Livestock; was sentenced to serve four years imprisonment, and appeals. Affirmed.
Jerry Otis, Antlers, Court-appointed Counsel, for plaintiff in error.
Joe Tom Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., for defendant in error.
Arnett Roberts, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Pushmataha County for the offense of Larceny of Livestock; his punishment was fixed at four years imprisonment and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Briefly stated, the evidence at the trial revealed that some time between October 8 and October 16, 1966, seven heifers were taken without permission from Harrison Noel in Pushmataha County. Five of the cattle were branded 'XV' on the left shoulder. Two were branded on the left shoulder with a Turkey Track brand. He subsequently observed one of his 'XV' branded heifers on a ranch near Sawyer, Oklahoma. Acting upon information from an inspector for the Cattlemans' Association he identified the six other heifers at a feed lot owned by Jake Williams near Ponca City on approximately November 7, 1966.
Paul Wade, an inspector for the Cattlemans' Association, conducted the investigation of the missing cattle. He found one of the heifers near Sawyer and the remaining six at Jake Williams' feed lot. He checked the records of a Tulsa Stockyard and found the six heifers in question were sold to a Bill Low, who, in turn, sold the cattle to Jake Williams.
Pearl Noftsger, an employee of the Tulsa Stockyards, testified that his duty was to check in cattle and to place them in particular pens. He identified a drive-in ticket in his handwriting showing that on October 13, 1966, he booked in six head of cattle and placed them in pen 700. He wrote the defendant's name on the ticket as the owner of the cattle. He could not remember the identity of the person whose name he wrote.
William Clay, another employee of the stockyards, testified that on October 13th, he sold the six head of cattle in pen 700 to Bill Low. The six head were the only cattle sold on that date. Later that day a man he could not identify came to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...when there is evidence, albeit circumstantial, to support that verdict. Hunter v. State, Okl.Cr., 478 P.2d 1001 (1970); Roberts v. State, Okl.Cr., 479 P.2d 623 (1971). We repeat our holding in Disheroon v. State, Okl.Cr., 357 P.2d 236 (1960), wherein we said in the first paragraph of the "(......
-
Turman v. State, F--73--390
...and probative value of such evidence is for the jury and not within the province of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Roberts v. State, Okl.Cr., 479 P.2d 623 (1971); Box v. State, Okl.Cr., 505 P.2d 995 (1973); Kirk v. State, Okl.Cr., 498 P.2d 412 The defendant's third proposition of error ......
-
Lemmon v. State, F--74--680
...therefore a question for the jury and we find these propositions to be without merit. See, Turman v. State, supra, and Roberts v. State, Okl.Cr., 479 P.2d 623 (1971). For their fourth assignment of error, defendants claim that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce certain rebut......
-
Slavens v. State
...many other states, that essential elements of a criminal offense may be proven circumstantially as by any other means. In Roberts v. State, Okl.Cr., 479 P.2d 623 (1971), we '. . . This Court has consistently held that where there is evidence, although entirely circumstantial, from which the......