State v. Crum, 49880
| Decision Date | 10 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 49880,49880 |
| Citation | 255 La. 60,229 So.2d 700 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond Eugene CRUM et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Jack P. E. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, David G. Perlis, Asst. Dist. Attys., for relator.
John R. Simmons, Jr., New Orleans, for respondent.
Upon the State's application we granted certiorari after the trial court on a habeas corpus hearing ordered the release of Raymond Eugene Crum and Wilbert James Smith who were serving sentences in the Louisiana State Penitentiary.
An automobile stolen in Mississippi was brought by Crum and Smith into Louisiana, and they were arrested while using this car in an attempt to escape after an armed robbery committed in New Orleans. They were jointly charged in Orleans Parish under R.S. 14:69 with intentionally procuring, receiving, and concealing property (the automobile) which they knew, or had good reason to know, had been stolen. Each pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve three years at hard labor in the penitentiary. The judge granted writs of habeas corpus and ordered the prisoners discharged upon his conclusions that according to the evidence the car was obtained in Mississippi and that there was no evidence of its having been Concealed in Louisiana. His determination on the question of concealment was made in reliance upon our holding in State v. Ellerbe, 217 La. 639, 47 So.2d 30 (1950). In Ellerbe the accused while in Franklin Parish took five pigs which he knew belonged to someone else and transported them to his home in Caldwell Parish, where they remained in his possession until discovered by the police. In reversing the conviction in Caldwell Parish for receiving, procuring, and concealing stolen things this court found that the procuring or receiving of the pigs had occurred in Franklin Parish, and that mere possession of the pigs in Caldwell Parish did not constitute concealment within the meaning of Article 69 of the Criminal Code (R.S. 14:69).
Although Ellerbe was relied upon by the trial judge for a literal and restrictive interpretation of 'concealing', we find that the definition given in that case is consistent with the liberal construction afforded that term within the context of this type of statute by the weight of authority.
The Ellerbe case was decided upon a minimal statement of fact which disclosed only that the defendant carried stolen pigs from Franklin Parish, where their owner lived, into the adjacent Parish of Caldwell to his own home. We stated that these facts were insufficient to show '* * * that appellant hid the pigs from public view or that He otherwise did anything to hinder the owner in his search and investigation of their whereabouts'. (Emphasis supplied.) The definition of 'concealing' in that case was based partially upon Texas jurisprudence, where one of the specific cases cited as well as a continuing line of cases has declared: * * * The word 'conceal' is not to be given the literal construction of hiding, but (there) may be (concealment) by handling the property in a manner that would throw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moynahan
...received the stolen goods to convert the property to his own use. Commonwealth v. Matheson, 328 Mass. 371, 103 N.E.2d 714; State v. Crum, 255 La. 60, 229 So.2d 700; Wertheimer v. State, supra; 66 Am.Jur.2d, Receiving Stolen Property, § The smashing of the television set was not an act that ......
-
Garcia v. State, 88-205
...home parish where the receiving offense had been committed elsewhere. That case is to be compared with the later case of State v. Crum, 255 La. 60, 229 So.2d 700 (1969), where the motor vehicle was stolen in Mississippi and then taken to New Orleans and used in a robbery. Concealment was fo......
-
Hunter v. State
... ... Commonwealth v. Matheson, 328 Mass. 371, 103 N.E.2d 714; State v. Crum, 255 La. 60, 229 So.2d 700; Wertheimer v. State, supra; 66 Am.Jur.2d, Receiving Stolen Property, § 4." State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 325 A.2d ... ...
-
State v. Russell, 80-KA-2142
...that the offender knew or had good reason to believe that the thing was the subject of one of these offenses." In State v. Crum, 255 La. 60, 229 So.2d 700 (1969), the Court re-examined its decision in State v. Ellerbe, 217 La. 639, 47 So.2d 30 (1950), and clarified the definition of conceal......