State v. Beard

• Decision Date: 11 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 3564.,3564.
• Citation: 147 N.W. 69,34 S.D. 76
• Parties: STATE v. BEARD.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

34 S.D. 76

147 N.W. 69

STATE

v.BEARD.

No. 3564.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

May 11, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butte County; W. G. Rice, Judge.

John T. Beard was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.Benedict & Wall, of Bellefourche, for appellant.

Royal C. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Malvin, State's Atty., of Bellefourche, for the State.

GATES, J.

The defendant was, by information, charged with the larceny at Butte county, S. D., on March 12, 1913, of one sorrel saddle horse branded 7h6 on the left shoulder, the proper of the J. G. Sheldon estate. The trial was had in November, 1913, resulting in a conviction of the defendant of the crime charged. From the judgment and order denying a new trial, the defendant appeals.

The evidence introduced on behalf of the prosecution discloses that the defendant brought the horse in question, with other horses, to the Erickson ranch in Butte county from the southwest en route to North Dakota, between March 10 and 15, 1913; that this horse had been owned by J. G. Sheldon; that it was sold by him to Earl Bell; that Sheldon took back a mortgage on the horse; that the mortgage was not paid; that by direction of the administrators, after Sheldon's death, the horse was voluntarily surrendered by Bell to Harold Sheldon, the manager of the stock and ranch of the Sheldon estate, in October, 1912. Harold Sheldon testified that he had not sold the horse to the defendant nor to any one else. One of the two administrators of the estate testified that he had not sold the horse to defendant nor to any one else, and had never given any one authority to take the horse and dispose of it. The other administrator testified to the same effect. In rebuttal the state offered evidence tending to show that the defendant made an admission, at the time of the preliminary hearing, that he knew that the horse in question belonged to the Sheldon estate, or that he knew that the horse in question had the Sheldon brand upon it.

[1][2] ‘It is urged by appellant's counsel that the corpus delicti has not been proven. A review of the testimony offered on behalf of defendant will not be helpful to the discussionof this question because it in no manner tends to supply the defect in the proof that a crime had been committed. We are inclined to the view that the appellant's contention is correct. It was not shown that the horse in question was ever lost or missed from the Sheldon ranch. No evidence as...