State v. Bayliss, 7171

• Decision Date: 22 March 1932
• Docket Number: 7171
• Citation: 59 S.D. 585,241 N.W. 608
• Parties: STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Appellant, v. W. W. BAYLISS, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

59 S.D. 585

241 N.W. 608

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Appellant,

v.

W. W. BAYLISS, Respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Bennett County, SD Hon. J. R. Cash, Judge #7171—Reversed Hastings Robertson, John George Day, Martin, SD M. Q. Sharpe, Attorney General Benj. D. Mintener, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, SD Attorneys for the State. W. J. Hooper, Gregory, SD Attorney for Respondent. Opinion Filed Mar 22, 1932

WARREN, J.

The state of South Dakota appealed from the order of the circuit court made on July 10, 1930, sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the information.

An information in two counts was filed by the state’s attorney in the circuit court of Bennett county, S. D., alleging that one W. W. Bayliss in the county of Bennett, state of South Dakota, on the 1st day of October, 1928, did commit the crime of embezzlement by an officer. The information in substance was as follows: That said Bayliss did willfully, feloniously, and knowingly fraudulently appropriate to his own use money in the sum of $96.02 intrusted to him by H. F. Couch in virtue of the defendant’s office of county sheriff of Bennett county, S. D.; that at the time said defendant did appropriate the said money he was the duly elected, qualified, and acting sheriff of Bennett county, S.D. Count 2 is in substance the same, excepting that the amount of money appropriated was in the sum of $47.20 and intrusted to the said sheriff by one C. L. Sawyer. The demurrer consisted of two grounds of objection; the first to the effect that more than one offense was charged in the information; the second that it did not describe a public offense.

Respondent first urged that more than one offense was charged in the information, and based his rights upon the protection afforded by our Constitution in article 6, § 7, giving him the right to be tried at one time on a single specific offense. This court has passed upon the first ground presented by the demurrer involving the constitutionality of chapter 143, SD Session Laws of 1927, relating to informations containing two or more different offenses in State v. Fox, 228 N.W. 382, and State v. Flathers, 72 ALR 150. On both occasions the constitutionality of the statute was upheld, and we adhere to the principles therein announced. For a full discussion, see State v. Fox, supra.

The information was attacked on the second ground that it did not describe a public offense. It would seem that the information was drawn under section 3766 of the 1919 Revised Code, which provides: § 3766. ... Embezzlement by Officer. Every sheriff, ... who, ... 2. Fraudulently appropriates to his own use or to the use of another person, or secretes with intent to appropriate to such use, any money, evidence of debt or other property intrusted to him in virtue of his office, is guilty of a felony.”

The information, although not artistically drawn, seems to contain all the ingredients required of subdivision 2 of section 3766, and covers all the required allegations necessary to inform the accused of the nature of the crime, and fully apprizes him of the offense substantially in the language of the statute. See ...