State v. Gowin
| Decision Date | 24 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 11883,11883 |
| Citation | 97 Idaho 766,554 P.2d 944 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Paul W. GOWIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Darrel W. Aherin, Lewiston, for defendant-appellant.
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Rudolph D. Barchas, Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appellant Paul Gowin appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of embezzlement by a servant 1 of property having a value in excess of $150.00, and the sentence entered thereon for an indeterminate maximum term of three years. Gowin's primary contention before this Court is that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a fraudulent intention to appropriate the items in question to his own use.
Gowin began working for Finke Lumber Company, Inc., of Pierce, Idaho, in early May, 1974, as a mechanic, working in the shop and on location at the site of logging operations. He provided his own pickup truck and most of the tools he used on the job. Finke Lumber Co. installed a two-way radio in the truck in order to communicate with Gowin when he worked in the field. In the course of his employment, Gowin would also use many tools and other equipment which belonged to Finke Lumber Co., Inc., and these items were all kept in large tool boxes in the back of his pickup truck.
On Thursday, July 11, 1974, Gowin confronted Carl Finke, a co-owner of the corporation, with several complaints regarding the calculation of his paycheck. During this discussion, Finke acknowledged that Gowin had been underpaid for his mileage in the use of his truck on the job, and also promised to investigate his other complaints. It is not clear whether the other complaints were well founded, but at trial Finke testified that he no longer owes Gowin any money while Gowin claimed that Finke Lumber Co. still owes him $285.00.
Although Gowin testified that he continued to work for Finke Lumber Company on the following Friday and Saturday, July 12 and 13, he did not turn in a time card for any hours past Thursday, July 11. On the following Tuesday, July 16, 1974, Gowin sent a letter from his home in Lewiston to Carl Finke informing him that he was 'fed up' and was quitting his job. This letter is hand written, and much of it is unintelligible. However, it is clear that Gowin intended to inform Finke by this letter that he would not return the various tools in his possession which belonged to Finke Lumber Company, Inc., including the radio, until the wage dispute was settled.
Upon receipt of this letter, Finke made no attempt to contact Gowin but went directly to the Clearwater County Sheriff in Orofino who drafted a criminal complaint and an affidavit for a search warrant based on the information contained in Gowin's letter and as supplied by Finke. Gowin was arrested while standing in the main street of Pierce near his truck, allegedly waiting for Carl Finke to return from lunch to discuss the dispute. Earlier that day, he had returned many of the missing tools to the Pierce Auto Supply (apparently owned by Finke's). A search warrant was obtained and Gowin's truck searched. The back of the truck was full of tools, tool boxes and personal property. The deputy who conducted the search of the truck stated at trial that some of the recovered tools were covered by other tools or were in tool boxes. He stated that Gowin himself assisted in identifying and turning over many of the items and that Gowin and Finke together removed the two-way radio from the dashboard of the truck.
Paul Gowin was charged by an information with violation of I.C. § 18-2405, embezzlement by a servant, of tools and equipment having a value of more than $150.00. At trial the defense moved that the information be dismissed and that the court order the entry of a judgment of acquittal because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of embezzlement by a servant. The defense particularly argued that the state had failed to prove the specific intent requirement set forth in the statute. The court denied the motion and the jury found the defendant guilty. Gowin was subsequently sentenced to a term of no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Idaho State Patrol
...performed the proscribed acts." Doe v. Durtschi, 110 Idaho 466, 470, 716 P.2d 1238, 1242 (1986) (quoting State v. Gowin, 97 Idaho 766, 767–68, 554 P.2d 944, 945–46 (1976) ).As the district court freely acknowledged, Miller has not provided any evidence whatsoever in the form of an affidavit......
-
Doe v. Durtschi
...intent" provision "is satisfied if it is shown that the defendant knowingly performed the proscribed acts...." State v. Gowin, 97 Idaho 766, 767-68, 554 P.2d 944, 945-46 (1976); see also, e.g., State v. Sisneros, 631 P.2d 856, 858 (Utah 1981) ("A person acts with intent when it is his consc......
-
Miller v. Idaho State Patrol
...knowingly performed the proscribed acts.” Doe v. Durtschi, 110 Idaho 466, 470, 716 P.2d 1238, 1242 (1986) (quoting State v. Gowin, 97 Idaho 766, 767–68, 554 P.2d 944, 945–46 (1976)). As the district court freely acknowledged, Miller has not provided any evidence whatsoever in the form of an......
-
State v. Diaz
...crime and is an element thereof." State v. Guerra , ––– Idaho ––––, ––––, 497 P.3d 1106, 1123 (2021) (quoting State v. Gowin , 97 Idaho 766, 767–68, 554 P.2d 944, 945–46 (1976) ). Whether a crime is a specific or general intent crime is a distinction "that has existed in our law throughout ......