State v. Adams
| Decision Date | 28 January 1905 |
| Citation | 10 Idaho 591,79 P. 398 |
| Parties | STATE v. ADAMS |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
BOUNTY LAW-FRAUDULENT CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY-PROOF-CONSUMMATION OF CRIME.
1. It is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that proof of certain facts may lead irresistibly to the presumption that an act of which there is no direct proof was committed.
2. Where it is shown that certain means were adopted to attain a certain end, and the end in itself was attained, a completion of the act will be presumed.
3. Under the provisions of section 6385, Revised Statutes, it is not required that a fraudulent bill against a county be allowed or paid before a conviction can be had, and it is no defense that the ears of the animals for which bounty was claimed were spurious and easily detected by the board of commissioners. In such case it does not require that the ears be genuine.
4. The provisions of section 1760b, Revised Statutes, have been superseded by act approved March 11, 1901, as to the animals named in the latter act.
5. Under the provisions of an act approved March 11, 1901 (Sixth Sess. Laws, 205), one may swear to his claim against the county for bounty before anyone in the county authorized to administer oaths, and on the presentation thereof with the ears, and whatever part of the pelt that the board of county commissioners may require, if such claim is valid, the board is authorized to allow it.
6. The fourth section of said act approved March 11th, supra, in regard to the making of false affidavits, was not intended to, and does not, supersede the provisions of said section 6385, but is a separate and distinct crime from the one referred to in that section.
7. Under the provisions of section 6385, when a false or fraudulent claim, with intent to defraud the county, is presented to the board for the purpose of procuring its allowance, the crime specified in said section is consummated.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the district court of Fremont County. Honorable J. M Stevens, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of presenting a false and fraudulent claim against Fremont county, and was found guilty and sentenced to a term of one year in the state penitentiary. Judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.
Hamer & McConnell and Chalmers & Jones, for Appellant.
The only proof against the defendant is that he made the affidavit of a claim under the bounty law, on June 12, 1902 at Market Lake, not a word showing or tending to show that he directly or indirectly, in person or by mail or otherwise, presented or caused to be presented, or participated in presenting, said alleged claim to any board or officer whatever, and it must be borne in mind that the gist of this action is the presentation of a false and fraudulent claim to a public board or officer. The rules relating to false pretenses and cheats are applicable here. The presentation of false accounts is false pretenses. (7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 754.) To authorize a conviction it must be shown that the prisoner knew the representations actually made to be false and that he intended to defraud. (Sharp v. State, 53 N.J.L. 511, 21 A. 1026; People v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 28 N.W. 871; 6 Lawson's Criminal Defenses, pp. 1033-1035; citing Bracey v. State, 64 Miss. 26, 8 So. 165.) The representation must not be obviously false, else no recovery or conviction can be had. In cases of this character, the statute, being highly penal, is to be strictly construed. (Bishop on Statutory Crimes, 2d ed., secs. 193, note 3, 199; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 643, and citations.)
John A. Bagley, Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant is prosecuted for presenting a false claim for payment and not for obtaining money under false pretenses. (Rev. Stats., sec. 6385; Hauck v. State, 45 Ohio St. 439, 14 N.E. 92.) Presenting false claims to public officers is an offense of a kindred nature to false pretenses and cheats, but is an entirely separate and distinct offense. (12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 853.) Section 1760b of the Revised Statutes is a general law in regard to the presentation of claims for bounties, but this claim was presented for the bounty offered on coyotes by an act found in Session Laws of 1901, page 205. While the statute involved in this case has nothing to do with the obtaining of money or property, but the gist of the crime, as counsel for appellant admit, is the presentation of the bill. Even the first authority cited by appellant bears us out in this contention. (7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 754; Roberts v. People, 9 Colo. 458, 13 P. 630; Utah Rev. Stats., secs. 4083, 4397; Cal. Pen. Code, secs. 72, 532.) As to the argument of counsel for appellant that if any offense has been committed by the defendant, it is a misdemeanor and not a felony, we reply that where a criminal act constitutes more than one offense, the state and not the defendant shall elect for which offense the information shall be filed. (Bishop on Criminal Law, 8th ed., secs. 791, 792; United States v. Grundy, 3 Cranch, 338, 2 L.Ed. 460; Lohman v. People, 1 N.Y. 379, 49 Am. Dec. 340; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 21 Am. Dec. 122.)
The facts are stated in the opinion.
This case was before this court at its November, 1903, term, and was remanded for a new trial. (9 Idaho 582, 75 P. 258.) On a retrial the defendant was convicted of presenting a false and fraudulent claim for $ 237 as a bounty on one hundred and fifty-eight coyote scalps, which scalps were found to be spurious or manufactured. The prosecution was under the provisions of section 6385 of the Revised Statutes, which section is as follows: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, town, city, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account voucher or writing is guilty of a felony." An act was passed at the sixth legislative session entitled "An act providing for the killing of coyotes, lynx and wildcats," and providing a fund for the payment of the same (Sess. Laws 1901, p. 205), by which act a bounty of $ 1.50 was offered for each and every coyote killed, and the defendant is charged with the crime of felony committed as follows: "That said R. D. R. Adams, on or about the thirteenth day of June, A. D. 1902, at the county of Fremont, in the state of Idaho did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to defraud Fremont county, state of Idaho present for allowance to the board of county commissioners of said Fremont county, state of Idaho who were authorized to allow the same if genuine, a false and fraudulent claim, a statement in writing duly verified by him, on the bounty fund of said Fremont county, state of Idaho for the sum of two hundred and thirty-seven dollars purporting to be for one hundred and fifty-eight coyote scalps, contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute in such case made and provided and against the power and force and dignity of the state of Idaho." The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of one year in the state penitentiary. The appeal is from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.
The first question presented by the brief of counsel for appellant is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence shows that the defendant appeared before his brother in law, who was justice of the peace, on the twelfth day of June, 1902, with a box claimed to contain the ears of one hundred and fifty-eight coyotes, and defendant's written claim against the county for the sum of $ 237 was prepared by said justice of the peace, and subscribed and sworn to by the defendant. The justice then gave to him said bill or claim and the box of ears and told him to send them to the clerk of the court of Fremont county. The defendant then left with the box and bill, and some person presented a box to the postmaster at Market Lake and requested him to register the same as coming from J. W Ayers, Market Lake, to A. M. Carter, St. Anthony, the said Carter being clerk of the court of said Fremont county. It also appears that said bill and a box of ears were received by said Carter as clerk of said court and ex-officio auditor, at St. Anthony, on the thirteenth day of June, 1902; that he received said bill in a letter that he received which showed that it was from Adams and in his favor, for bounty on one hundred and fifty-eight coyotes. It further shows that said ears were manufactured and spurious. It is further shown that a man by name of Short and the defendant were operating together in the coyote business, and that said Short manufactured coyote ears; that said defendant took from said Short a cigar-box full of said spurious ears. It appears that said defendant requested a man by the name...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kleier
...unexplained, is sufficient to justify conviction of the accused. State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 203, 214, 232 P. 1; State v. Adams, 10 Idaho 591, 597, 79 P. 398; State v. Bogris, 26 Idaho 587, 601, 144 P. State v. Sanford, 8 Idaho 187, 67 P. 492. An accused must request appointment of counse......
-
State of Davis, 7727
... ... If thus connected by legitimate implication or inference with defendant, [72 Idaho 123] this entire circumstance was admissible as indicating a plan or design to conceal the identify of the stolen car. State v. Adams, 10 Idaho 591, at page 597, 79 P. 398. On the other hand, if the evidence relative to the Scott motor and its number was so disconnected that it should not have been admitted, is but to say it is immaterial. The episode of the Scott motor and asserted lack of connection between the motor number ... ...
-
State v. Stevens
... ... of its truth." (25 C. J., p. 652, sec. 89.) ... Generally, ... statements made by one accused of crime after his arrest, if ... voluntarily made, and which reasonably tend to prove his ... guilt, are admissible against him. ( State v. Adams, ... 10 Idaho 591, 79 P. 398; State v. Ellington, 4 Idaho ... 529. [48 Idaho 349] 43 P. 60; State v. Wilson, 41 ... Idaho 616 (629), 243 P. 359; State v. Garney, 45 ... Idaho 768 (773), 265 P. 668.) We are of the opinion that ... Kass' statements as to the misrepresentations were ... ...
-
State v. Curtis
... ... 364, ... 370; State v. McIntosh, 109 Iowa 209, 80 N.W. 349.) ... The ... felony with which the defendant was charged was the ... presentment of a false claim, and the receipt of money ... thereon is in no way essential to the accomplishment of the ... criminal act. (State v. Adams, 10 Idaho 591, 79 P ... "A ... genuine instrument containing a false statement of facts, ... used in support of a claim, the party knowing it to be false, ... and using it with intent to defraud, presents a case not ... distinguishable in principle, or in turpitude, or in its ... ...