Stanley v. State
Decision Date | 28 May 1937 |
Docket Number | A-9215. |
Citation | 69 P.2d 398,61 Okla.Crim. 382 |
Parties | STANLEY v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. One taking hogs from the range under a claim of title of ownership and a right to their possession is not guilty of larceny, even though he is mistaken as in such case the felonious intent is lacking.
2. The word "steal" as used in Oklahoma Statutes 1931 section 2267 (21 Okl.St.Ann. § 1716), defining larceny of domestic animals includes all the elements of larceny at common law.
3. Evidence examined and found insufficient to show criminal intent to commit larceny.
4. Record carefully examined and the evidence stated in the opinion considered, and found insufficient to warrant a conviction.
Appeal from District Court, Ottawa County; Ad V. Coppedge, Judge.
Bert Stanley was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
Reversed.
O. F Mason, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, the defendant in the lower court, was by information charged with larceny of one black sow, weight about 260 pounds, marked with a swallow fork in the left ear and a split in the right ear, and five black and red spotted shoats which weighed about 40 pounds each, with no marks or brands, the property of Alvie Cunningham; was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary. Record was properly saved, and the defendant has appealed.
The state to maintain the charge against the defendant called as a witness Alvie Cunningham, who stated he lived in Ottawa county in the fall of 1934 and until January, 1935; "I know Bert Stanley; he lived north and east of me something like a mile and a half; I know Hallie Lankford; he lives south and west of my place something like a mile or a mile and a half early in January 1935 I was the owner of a black sow that weighed about 250 pounds, and five shoats; the sow was marked with a swallow fork in the left and a split in the right ear; I had owned her for more than two years; the shoats, I imagine would weigh about forty pounds; they were running on the open range; the sow had been ranging down on Cow Skin, she would go back and forth; I got Mr. Maddux to go with me down there and hauled them home and kept them shut up for about three weeks and turned them out, and they would go off and stay maybe three or four days, maybe a week, and then come back, and then disappear again.
After they disappeared I went down to Mr. Hamas' where she had been running in a wheat field and late corn field near the river; I went next to Mr. Lankford's, the sow had been there but was gone; I looked for my hogs but I did not find them. I went to Mr. Bert Stanley, the defendant, and told him I had come to demand my hogs, that I had found out he had my hogs and I wanted my money for them; he said he did not know they were my hogs or he wouldn't have gotten them; we talked a little while and Stanley said how much money, and I told him $22.50; he wanted to know how soon I had to have it and I told him Saturday; I suppose it was about Wednesday when I was talking to him; I went back to his place Saturday evening but he was not there and I did not get to see him until after Mr. Dry went down with me and he was arrested. I do not know what hogs Mr. Stanley had prior to January; I saw some hogs there in his pen when I was at Mr. Stanleys house asking about my hogs but I do not know they were his.
The last time I saw my hogs was a few days before Christmas 1934, down in the southeast part of Ottawa County, near Turkey Ford district. I live on the north side of the Delaware County line. It is rough country; the last time I saw them was down toward Mr. Hamas' place. I don't know how far Mr. Lankford's place is from Mr. Hamas' farm; there is quite a hilly country around there; it is a little over half a mile from Mr. Lankford's place to the Hamas farm; they are in Delaware County. The hogs had been gone from my place since two or three days before Christmas 1934; I do not know how old the pigs were. I went down to Mr. Bert Stanley's, the defendants, about the twentieth of January, I believe it was, wouldn't say for sure. My cousin Elmer Cunningham was with me. When we got to his home he was working on a Model T Ford; after we passed the time of day I told Bert I came to demand my money for the hogs; he said he didn't think they were my hogs or he wouldn't have taken them; I wouldn't say he stated they were his hogs; he agreed to pay me for them but he never talked about it any more; he went to a saw mill where his brother-in-law was working, and was working there when the sheriff went down and got him."
Hallie Lankford, testifying for the state, stated,
Dewey McElheany, testifying for the state stated,
Russell Cunningham called as a witness stated, "I am a cousin of Alvie Cunningham; I lived in the same neighborhood with Alvie last January, near Bert Stanleys; I was at Bert's place in January when they was doing some butchering; I do not remember the date; when I got there Dewey and Bert were fixing to kill a black sow, I judge she would weigh about 240 or 250 pounds."
Elmer Cunningham stated, "I am a cousin of Alvie Cunningham; I knew Bert Stanley; I went with Alvie to Stanley's house to see about some hogs some time in January 1935; Alvie asked him what he was going to do about the hogs; Stanley said, Alvie if I had known these were your hogs I would not have taken them; Alvie told him he wanted pay for his hogs, if you do there will be nothing further said about it, if you don't I will have to turn you over to the law.
Bert asked him how long he could wait for the money, and he said Saturday; and Alvie said, I will be back by here Saturday afternoon between four and five o'clock; I live near Alvie and know he had some hogs at that time but I do not know how many; he had a black sow. I am a cousin of Russell Cunningham."
Joe McElheany testifying in substance stated, "I know Bert...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDaniels v. State
... ... taken." See, also, the following cases: Underwood v ... State, 23 Okl.Cr. 119, 212 P. 1010; Smith v ... State, 10 Okl.Cr. 544, 139 P. 709; Bayless v. State, ... 9 Okl.Cr. 27, 130 P. 520; Cope v. State, 23 ... Okl.Cr. 161, 213 P. 753; Dunn v. State, 14 Okl.Cr ... 452, 172 P. 463; Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382, ... 69 P.2d 398; Hughes v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 40, 65 P.2d ... 544; Richardson v. State, 134 P.2d 375 ... [139 P.2d 194] ... (not yet reported in Oklahoma Criminal Reports) ... It is ... the contention of the defendant that the case of Sneed v ... ...
-
Tate v. State, F-85-57
...mistaken as to having ownership rights in the property alleged to be stolen, a larceny conviction is not sustainable. Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382, 69 P.2d 398 (1938). In Stanley, this Court noted that generally courts [W]here the taking is open and in the presence of friends, and there......
- Smith v. State
-
Walker v. State
... ... them at his home where any one might see them, making no ... apparent effort at any time to conceal the same or mislead ... any one as to his claim of ownership. Shaw v. State, ... 13 Okl.Cr. 511, 165 P. 617; Vansdale v. State, 45 ... Okl.Cr. 123, 286 P. 170; Stanley v. State ... (Okl.Cr.App.) 69 P.2d 398, not yet reported [in State ... Reports] ... The ... proof offered by the state fails to disclose conduct on the ... part of the defendant which indicates he had stolen the ... fresnoes. It would be unreasonable to believe that a man ... ...