State v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 10 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12842,12842 |
| Citation | 612 P.2d 552,101 Idaho 315 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al GRIFFITH, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., John F. Dutcher, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.
Iver J. Longeteig, Boise, for defendant-respondent.
Under the provisions of I.A.R. 11(c)(3), the State appeals from a district court decision dismissing a grand larceny information, on defendant Griffith's I.C. § 19-815A motion. 1 The appeal record contains the transcript of the preliminary hearing, with the magistrate's totally conclusory statement that "the State has established probable cause."
The district court made two separate reviews of the transcript of the preliminary hearing, and rendered a five page memorandum decision which is in the appeal record. The record also provides us with the exhibits which were presented at the preliminary hearing.
The defendant's motion to dismiss presented the district court with the rather monumental task of reviewing the magistrate's determination without the benefit of even an inkling of the rationale of the magistrate's decision-making process. 2 Nonetheless, the district court did so, making a painstaking review of the record before it, extracting therefrom the facts which the evidence tended to establish, and also delineating that evidence which seemed essential, but which was missing.
The court then made an analysis of applicable law, and, applying the law to the facts he found by his thorough review of the record, held that the information in district court should be dismissed.
The State's brief cites under points and authorities forty cases (none of which are from Idaho), two sections of the Idaho Code, three Court rules, two commentaries to court rules, five treatises, three annotations, three references to Am.Jur.2d, two references to C.J.S., and one reference to Corpus Juris but nowhere in the argument portion of this brief is there any discussion of this awesome array of authority; nowhere is there presented any argument illustrating or attempting to illustrate any error in the district court's carefully thought out findings and conclusions. Apparently it is believed that this Court will plow the same field which the trial court has already not only plowed, but disked and harrowed. This we decline to do.
Spriggs v. Copenhaver, 459 P.2d 203, 203 (Wyo.1969).
Similarly, it has long been a rule of this Court that error is not presumed, and appellant bears the burden of showing wherein the district court erred. Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 233, 236, 392 P.2d 423, 424 (1964); Clear v. Marvin, 86 Idaho 87, 92, 383 P.2d 346, 349 (1963); Byington v. Horton, 61 Idaho 389, 397, 102 P.2d 652, 655 (1940).
The district court order dismissing the information is affirmed.
After reviewing the record made at the preliminary hearing, it is my conclusion that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion in binding the defendant over to district court for trial on the charge of grand larceny. I must also express my disagreement with the majority's comments regarding the degree of specificity required in the magistrate's decision to bind the defendant over for trial and the deference this Court must give the district court's review of the magistrate's action in binding the defendant over for trial.
At the preliminary hearing, the state is not required to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It need only establish that a crime was committed and that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it. O'Neill v. State, 92 Idaho 885, 452 P.2d 989 (1969); I.C. §§ 19-804 and -815. The decision of a magistrate that there exists probable cause to bind the defendant over to district court for trial on a charge should be overturned only upon a showing that the committing magistrate abused his discretion. State v. O'Mealey, 95 Idaho 202, 506 P.2d 99 (1973); Carey v. State, 91 Idaho 706, 429 P.2d 836 (1967).
The state's appeal in this case is authorized by I.A.R. 11(c)(3). 1 It is this Court's duty to examine the record on appeal to determine whether the magistrate abused his discretion in binding the defendant over to district court. The majority, however, is apparently not inclined to do so. My examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing shows that the state presented evidence which, if believed by the magistrate, amply supports his decision to bind defendant Griffith over for trial on a charge of grand larceny.
The evidence indicates that Griffith was doing business in Idaho in 1975 as Standard American Oil Company and that Griffith had business dealings with both Gulf Oil Corporation and Galey Construction Company, at whose site the pipe which was the subject of the alleged larceny was stored. The testimony was undisputed that the pipe at all times belonged to Gulf Oil. In January, 1975, Griffith arranged to sell the pipe to J. T. Moseley of Texas American Oil Company for $14,230.20. Griffith at no time disclosed to Moseley that the pipe belonged to Gulf. Griffith received payment for the pipe sections from Texas American Oil Company in February, 1975, by way of a check payable to Standard American Oil Company. Gulf Oil Corporation never received payment from Griffith, Texas American Oil Company, or any other party for the pipe sections.
The pipe was loaded onto trucks hired by defendant Griffith by a Galey employee who testified that he did so in the presence of Griffith and while under the mistaken impression that Griffith was a Gulf Oil employee. The Galey employee stated that he was to unload or load Gulf's pipe stored at the Galey site whenever Gulf desired. Another Galey employee testified that Gulf Oil Corporation had never authorized removal of the pipe from the Galey yard. Gulf employees testified that no one empowered to order sale of Gulf assets had authorized disposition of the pipe sections. Testimony by a Gulf Oil Corporation investigator and an Ada County deputy sheriff showed that during their investigation of the transaction involving the Gulf pipe sections defendant Griffith had made three inconsistent explanations for his actions in arranging sale of the pipe to Texas American Oil Company and receiving payment for it. Upon this evidence the magistrate concluded as follows:
Focusing on the common law distinctions between larceny, embezzlement, and obtaining property by false pretenses, the district court concluded that because there was some evidence that a Gulf Oil Corporation employee, Robert Maxwell, may have connived with Griffith to pilfer Gulf's pipe stored in Boise, the record was "completely devoid of any evidence which would support the conclusion that defendant's participation made the offense larceny rather than embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretenses." However, at least one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Putzier
...expectations. It must be remembered, however, that this Court will not presume error on the part of the trial court. State v. Griffith, 101 Idaho 315, 612 P.2d 552 (1980). Moreover, "where an order of a lower court is correct but is based upon an erroneous theory, the order will be affirmed......
-
State v. Matthews
...did not properly raise them below or because he has not provided any argument to support his claims on appeal. State v. Griffith, 101 Idaho 315, 612 P.2d 552 (1980); State v. Burris, 101 Idaho 683, 619 P.2d 1136 (1980). Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's admission of Sorini'......
-
State v. Larsen
...be expected to prosecute independent inquiry for some error upon which an appellant could possibly rely.' " State v. Griffith, 101 Idaho 315, 316, 612 P.2d 552, 553 (1980) (citing Spriggs v. Copenhaver, 459 P.2d 203 (Wyo.1969)). At oral argument Larsen briefly claimed that the grand jury te......