State v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 17 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | 7050 |
| Citation | 64 Idaho 627,135 P.2d 300 |
| Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. RICHARD HAYNES, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW-EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF-REVERSAL.
1. Possession of recently stolen property, unexplained "prima facie" proves larceny.
2. The state is bound by its evidence, and where it is directly contradictory, a conviction cannot stand.
3. Evidence which was directly contradictory of defendant's guilt was insufficient to sustain conviction of burglary in second degree. (I.C.A., sec. 17-3401.)
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, in and for Canyon County. Honorable Thomas E. Buckner, District Judge.
Appeal from conviction for the crime of burglary and being a persistent violator of the law. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Earl E Garrity for appellant.
Evidence which creates nothing more than a suspicion of guilt although it be a strong suspicion is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. (State v. Rankin, 56 Idaho, p. 64.)
"As in the case of other prosecutions, evidence which creates nothing more than a suspicion of guilt, although it be a strong suspicion, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction." (53 C. J., p. 534.)
Bert H. Miller, attorney general, J. R. Smead, assistant attorney general, and V. K. Jeppesen, for respondent.
Possession of stolen property, unexplained, is sufficient evidence of intent to steal.
It is not necessary that there was an intent to steal any specific personal property. (State v. Brassfield, 40 Idaho 2013; State v. Taylor, 33 Idaho 224.)
--Appellant urges the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of burglary in the second degree and being a persistent violator because of the following inconsistency and contradiction in the proof submitted by the state, the appellant offering no evidence.
Appellant was charged with burglary as of the 28th of March, 1942, and was sufficiently identified as having entered the complaining witnesses' house on that day, without the owners' consent and against their will and without their permission. To prove the essential larcenous intent (Sec. 17-3401, I. C. A.) the state relies upon evidence of the police officers at Nampa that there was taken from his possession on his arrest in Nampa, March 22, a billfold belonging to the complaining witnesses and which was kept in a dresser drawer in their premises; in other words, that possession of recently stolen property, unexplained, prima facie proves larceny. (State v. Bates, (Idaho) 117 P.2d 281.) It is thus the state's theory that appellant purloined the pocketbook at the time of his entry on March 28. If appellant at the time of his entry on March 28 did not enter the building with intent to commit larceny, he was, of course, so far as the situation here in concerned, not guilty of burglary. The state, however, produced positive evidence that the police officers took the billfold from appellant March 22, six days before the crime was alleged to have been committed and, so far as the proof shows, entry effected, i.e., March 28, and retained it in their possession up to the time of the trial.
In the billfold at the time it was taken off of appellant in the jail in Nampa was a driver's license issued to one Loveland (claimed by the state to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hansen, 7352
... ... conviction entered in this cause against the appellant and in ... favor of the State of Idaho, Session Laws 1939, Chapter 222, ... Section 902; State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho 68, 199 P ... 647, 17 A.L.R. 902; State v. Vanek, 59 Idaho 514, 84 ... P.2d 567; State v. Haynes, 64 Idaho 627, 135 P.2d ... 300; State v. Wilson, 62 Idaho 282, 111 P.2d 868; ... State v. Henry, 66 Idaho 60, 154 P.2d 184; State ... v. Robinson, 158 Kan. 287, 147 P.2d 374; People v ... Rende, Co.Ct., 33 N.Y.S.2d 791 ... In the ... absence of proof that the substance allegedly ... ...
-
State v. Haggard
...arises a presumption of guilt. State v. Kombol, 81 Idaho 530, 347 P.2d 117; State v. Hewitt, 73 Idaho 452, 254 P.2d 677; State v. Haynes, 64 Idaho 627, 135 P.2d 300; State v. Gilbert, 65 Idaho 210, 142 P.2d 584. This defendant offered no explanation whatever regarding his possession of any ......
-
State v. Kombol
...by appellant as to the fact and circumstance of possession, this raised a presumption that he committed the larceny.' In State v. Haynes, 64 Idaho 627, 135 P.2d 300, this Court '* * * that possession of recently stolen property, unexplained, prima facie proves larceny.' In State v. Hewitt, ......
-
State v. Darrah
...to sustain their conviction. They refer to certain conflicts in the testimony of state's witnesses and cite State v. Haynes, 64 Idaho 627, 135 P.2d 300 (1943); State v. Darrah, 60 Idaho 479, 92 P.2d 143 (1939). In both these cases the state had introduced unexplained exculpatory evidence te......