State v. Bickford

• Decision Date: 02 December 1913
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

147 N.W. 407

28 N.D. 36

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. GEORGE L. BICKFORD

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 2, 1913

Opinion on Rehearing filed May 22, 1914.

Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, Crawford, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement as a public officer, under § 9205, R. C. 1905, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Niles & Koffel, and Geo. R. Robins, and Geo. A. Bangs, for appellant.

The information was too broad, vague, and indefinite. The crime of embezzlement may be committed in four different ways. State v. Howe, 27 Ore. 138, 44 P. 672.

Where the offense may be alternately charged in separate counts, it must clearly appear from such counts that the same offense or transaction is so thus charged. The information or indictment must charge but one offense. Rev. Codes 1905, § 9851; State v. Smith, 2 N.D. 515, 52 N.W. 320; State v. Marcks, 3 N.D. 532, 58 N.W. 25; State v Belyea, 9 N.D. 353, 83 N.W. 1; State v Valentine, 7 S.D. 98, 63 N.W. 541; State v Boughner, 7 S.D. 103, 63 N.W. 542; State v Hall, 14 S.D. 161, 84 N.W. 766; State v. Mattison, 13 N.D. 391, 100 N.W. 1091.

The rule is that where the information attempts to charge the same offense as having been committed by different means, and separate counts are made use of in so doing, the information must clearly show but one offense charged. People v. Thompson, 28 Cal. 217; People v. Shotwell, 27 Cal. 394, 400; People v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 103; People v. Quvise, 56 Cal. 396; Territory v. Poulier, 8 Mont. 146, 19 P. 594; Sturgis v. State, 2 Okla. Crim. Rep. 373, 102 P. 57; DeGraff v. State, 2 Okla. Crim. Rep. 519, 103 P. 538; Chanpett v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. Rep. 23, 109 P. 124; Scott v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. Rep. 70, 109 P. 240; Cochran v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. Rep. 379, 111 P. 974; Grant v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. Rep. 372, 117 P. 1100; Kimbrell v. State, 7 Okla. Crim. Rep. 354, 123 P. 1027; State v. Chapman, 6 Nev. 320; State v. Malim, 14 Nev. 288.

The verdict must respond to and be within the issues as framed by the information and the plea of defendant. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 9914, 10044 and 10059; 12 Cyc. 690; 7 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 459; 22 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 873; 2 Bishop, New Crim. Proc. 2d ed. 1005; Clark, Crim. Proc. 485.

Conviction for some offense duly charged, but less than that alleged, cannot be treated as void; it is a conviction in part. Riflemaker v. State, 25 Ohio St. 395; State v. White, 41 Iowa 316, 20 Am. Rep. 602; State v. Behee, 17 Kan. 402; State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. 472; Gibbs v. State, 34 Tex. 135; People v. Coch, 53 Cal. 627; People v. Ah Gow, 53 Cal. 627; Huffman v. State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; People v. Curtis, 76 Cal. 57, 17 P. 941; State v. Bellard, 50 La.Ann. 594, 69 Am. St. Rep. 461, 23 So. 504; State v. French, 50 La.Ann. 461, 23 So. 606; Chambers v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. Rep. 61, 68 S.W. 286; State v. Copenhaver, 35 Mont. 342, 89 P. 61; People v. Smith, 136 Cal. 207, 68 P. 702, 13 Am. Crim. Rep. 719; People v. Arnett, 126 Cal. 680, 59 P. 204; Kimball v. Territory, 13 Ariz. 310, 115 P. 70; People v. Tilley, 135 Cal. 61, 67 P. 42; State v. DeWitt, 186 Mo. 61, 84 S.W. 956; People v. Cummings, 117 Cal. 499, 49 P. 576; People v. Small, 1 Cal.App. 320, 82 P. 87; State v. Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 278, 79 S.W. 980; Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1086, 106 N.W. 531, 5 Ann. Cas. 389.

Under the law mentioned, one cannot be convicted unless he is an officer or person charged by law with the collection of public moneys. Moore v. State, 53 Neb. 831, 74 N.W. 319; State v. Meyers, 56 Ohio St. 340, 47 N.E. 138; State v. Spaulding, 102 Iowa 639, 72 N.W. 288; United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 31 L.Ed. 534, 8 S.Ct. 595; United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 25 L.Ed. 482; United States v. Bixby, 10 Biss. 238, 6 F. 375; State v. Newton, 26 Ohio St. 265; Hartnett v. State, 56 Tex. Crim. Rep. 281, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 761, 133 Am. St. Rep. 971, 119 S.W. 855; Com. v. Alexander, 129 Ky. 429, 112 S.W. 586; State v. Bolin, 110 Mo. 209, 19 S.W. 650; Dickey v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 144 S.W. 271.

The money in such cases must be public money. United States v. Mason, 218 U.S. 517, 54 L.Ed. 1133, 31 S.Ct. 28; State v. Pierson, 83 Ohio St. 241, 93 N.E. 977; State v. Connelly, 104 N.C. 794, 10 S.E. 469; Dickey v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 144 S.W. 271.

The ownership of the property embezzled must be alleged in the information and proved on the trial. State v. Collins, 4 N.D. 433, 61 N.W. 467; State v. Nelson, 79 Minn. 373, 82 N.W. 674.

Finding the defendant guilty of embezzlement as charged in the information is material. But the jury failed to find the other essential elements of the offense. The verdict must respond to the issues submitted to the jury. Turley v. People, 188 Ill. 628, 59 N.E. 506; Donovan v. People, 215 Ill. 520, 74 N.E. 772; Mai v. People, 224 Ill. 414, 79 N.E. 633; People v. Lee, 237 Ill. 272, 86 N.E. 573; People v. Davidson, 240 Ill. 191, 88 N.E. 565; People v. Morton, 245 Ill. 530, 92 N.E. 318; State v. Holland, 162 Mo.App. 678, 145 S.W. 522; State v. Grossman, 214 Mo. 233, 113 S.W. 1074; Kimball v. Territory, 13 Ariz. 310, 115 P. 70.

The verdict is inadequate and uncertain, as it does not show on which of one or more independent counts the defendant is convicted; and it will not sustain a judgment. State v. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635, 18 S.W. 128; State v. Pierce, 136 Mo. 34, 37 S.W. 815; Scott v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. Rep. 70, 109 P. 240.

The court's instruction to the effect that, "it is sufficient to establish that the defendant converted any portion of said sum to his own use as above set forth" is erroneous in that each separate, isolated, distinct transaction, if criminal, constitutes a completed offense. State v. Laechelt, 18 N.D. 88, 118 N.W. 240.

It is incumbent upon the state to elect which offense it will rely upon for conviction. State v. Poull, 14 N.D. 557, 105 N.W. 717.

And this should be required before the defendant shall be compelled to enter upon his defense. People v. Hatch, 13 Cal.App. 521, 109 P. 1097; Edelhoff v. State, 5 Wyo. 19, 36 P. 627, 9 Am. Crim. Rep. 256; Goodhue v. People, 94 Ill. 37; West v. People, 137 Ill. 189, 27 N.E. 34, 34 N.E. 254; Mayo v. State, 30 Ala. 32; People v. Castro, 133 Cal. 11, 65 P. 13; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165, 65 P. 323; Trask v. People, 35 Colo. 83, 83 P. 1010; White v. People, 8 Colo.App. 289, 45 P. 539; Stockwell v. State, 27 Ohio St. 563; Bainbridge v. State, 30 Ohio St. 264.

In cases of this character, where the prosecuting officer is at liberty to prove one out of several specific and independent offenses, it is his duty, at or before the commencement of the trial, to elect and settle upon one. People v. Bartnett, 15 Cal.App. 89, 113 P. 879; State v. Norris, 122 Iowa 154, 97 N.W. 999; People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 61 Am. St. Rep. 326, 65 N.W. 203; Kittrell v. State, 89 Miss. 666, 42 So. 609; Thweatt v. State, 49 Tex. Crim. Rep. 617, 95 S.W. 517; Gelber v. State, 56 Tex. Crim. Rep. 460, 120 S.W. 863; State v. Workman, 66 Wash. 292, 119 P. 751; State v. Osborne, 39 Wash. 548, 81 P. 1096; State v. Palmberg, 199 Mo. 233, 116 Am. St. Rep. 476, 97 S.W. 566.

When the prosecution fails to so elect, it will be deemed and presumed that it will rely upon the transaction it first isolates, and upon which proof is offered. State v. Hilberg, 22 Utah 27, 61 P. 215; State v. Hansen, 40 Utah 418, 122 P. 375; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165, 65 P. 323; People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, 1 Am. Crim. Rep. 660; Richardson v. State, 63 Ind. 192, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 302; Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; Scruggs v. State, 111 Ala. 60, 20 So. 642; Baker v. People, 105 Ill. 452; State v. Bates, 10 Conn. 372; Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 52 P. 671; Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 542; Fields v. Territory, 1 Wyo. 78, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 318.

Evidence of the commission of other offenses is limited in its purpose, to show intent, motive, or credibility, but never is proof of the specific charge in the information. State v Laechelt, 18 N.D. 88, 118 N.W. 240; Blashfield, Instructions to Juries, § 354; 11 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 369; 12 Cyc. 631; 7 Enc. Ev. 642; 3 Enc. Ev. 188, 189; 11 Ann. Cas. 818; Harrold v. Territory, 18 Olka. 395, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 604, 89 P. 202; Bacon v. State Tax Comrs. 60 L.R.A. 350 note; Com. v. Shepard, 1 Allen, 581; Com. v. Sawtelle, 141 Mass. 140, 5 N.E. 312; State v. Lewis, 19 Ore. 478, 24 P. 914; Chamberlain v. State, 80 Neb. 812, 115 N.W. 555; Stanley v. State, 88 Ala. 154, 7 So. 273; McGuire v. State, 2 Ala.App. 218, 57 So. 57; People v. Gray, 66 Cal. 271, 5 P. 240; People v. Glass, 158 Cal. 650, 112 P. 295; People v. Cook, 148 Cal. 334, 83 P. 49; Edelhoff v. State, 5 Wyo. 19, 36 P. 627, 9 Am. Crim. Rep. 256; Herren v. People, 28 Colo. 23, 62 P. 833; Warford v. People, 43 Colo. 107, 96 P. 556; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 99 P. 328, 16 Ann. Cas. 787; State v. Jeffries, 117 N.C. 727, 23 S.E. 163; State v. Beard, 124 N.C. 811, 32 S.E. 804; State v. Greene, 33 Utah 497, 94 P. 987; Kollock v. State, 88 Wis. 663, 60 N.W. 817; Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 N.E. 1039; Porter v. State, 173 Ind. 694, 91 N.E. 340; Storms v. State, 81 Ark. 25, 98 S.W. 678; People v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 N.E. 370; Morse v. Com. 129 Ky. 294, 111 S.W. 714; Francis v. State, 7 Tex.App. 501; McCall v. State, 14 Tex.App. 353; Barton v. State, 28 Tex.App. 484, 13 S.W. 783; Warren v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 502, 26 S.W. 1082; Oliver v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 541, 28 S.W. 202; Thornley v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. Rep. 125, 61 Am. St. Rep. 837, 34 S.W. 264, 35 S.W. 981; Martin v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. Rep. 125, 35 S.W. 976; Grant v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. Rep. 311, 70 S.W. 954; Peterson v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 70 S.W. 978; Scoville v. State, Tex. Crim. Rep. , 77 S.W. 792; Wyatt v....