State v. Groom
| Decision Date | 14 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6805. |
| Citation | 300 P. 226,89 Mont. 447 |
| Parties | STATE v. GROOM. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1931.
Appeal from District Court, Rosebud County; G. J. Jeffries, Judge.
Thomas Groom was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Carolan & Fenton, of Forsyth, for appellant.
L. A Foot, Atty. Gen., F. F. Haynes, of Forsyth, and Gunn, Rasch Hall & Gunn, of Helena, for the State.
Thomas Groom was convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property; he has appealed from the judgment of conviction and an order denying him a new trial.
The information charged defendant with buying a calf, knowing it to have been stolen, with the intent to prevent the owner from again possessing the property; it described the animal with particularity, and alleged ownership in the United States.
The proof adduced was ample to establish the following facts: The calf was the offspring of a cow issued by the government to an Indian residing on the Cheyenne Reservation; it was stolen from the reservation by an Indian who told Groom that it was so stolen, and was purchased by Groom, at considerable less than its market value, under an agreement to buy "slick" (unbranded) calves. By reason of the fact that the calf described was stolen in the middle of a cold winter, its hair was so long that both the thief and Groom mistook it for a "slick," when in fact it, like its mother, was branded with the Indian Department brand (ID) and a number brand (37), evidencing the Indian to whom the original stock was issued. Under direction of Groom the animal was delivered in the nighttime to avoid detection.
1. This proof made a complete case for the state (State v Moxley, 41 Mont. 402, 110 P. 83); but defendant contends that it does not prove ownership in the United States, and that the court erred in instructing the jury to the effect that proof that the calf was the offspring of cattle issued to an Indian and run upon the reservation under the direction and control of the government was proof that the animal was, as alleged, the property of the United States. These questions were raised and determined, contrary to defendant's position, in State v. Huffman, 89 Mont. --, 296 P. 789.
2. It is asserted that reversible error was committed in the admission of testimony concerning other purchases made by Groom from the thief. This testimony by the thief, Roundstone, was that prior to this transaction he had, under like circumstances and the agreement mentioned, sold and delivered to Groom ten other stolen calves in groups of twos and threes. Such testimony was clearly admissible to show the intent and guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant. State v. Moxley, above. But, it is contended, even so, error was committed in permitting Roundstone to detail at length his actions in capturing and removing the several calves from the reservation, as Groom was admittedly not present, and therefore the testimony could not tend to establish guilty knowledge.
While the recitals were prolix, the evidence was admissible for the purpose of establishing the necessary fact, as to each larceny, that the calves in question were in fact stolen, in order that such proof might tend to establish guilty knowledge on the part of defendant.
The agreement between Groom and the Indian was that the latter would steal the calves which he would later bring to the former's home in the nighttime; by the testimony here considered he but proved that he did steal them.
3. Error is assigned on the refusal to give the following instruction: "You are instructed that the testimony relative to the stealing of the calf described in the information, and the other animals referred to in the testimony, has been introduced solely for the purpose of proving that the animals in question were stolen, and this testimony is not to be considered by you as for any other purpose than to determine whether or not these animals were in fact stolen."
The court correctly instructed the jury as to the effect and purpose of testimony relative to other transactions of a like character, and, as to that phase of the offered instruction it might well have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial