State v. Holt, 13932
| Decision Date | 23 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 13932,13932 |
| Citation | 334 N.W.2d 47 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Carroll Bradford HOLT, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Douglas E. Kludt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
William H. Coacher, Sturgis, for defendant and appellant.
Defendant Carroll Holt was charged with "Receiving Stolen Property (Felony) in that he did then and there receive, retain or dispose of property of another of more than the value of two hundred dollars ... in violation of SDCL 22-30A-7." 1 He appeals from his conviction. We affirm.
The first issue on appeal is whether the verdict found defendant guilty of the offense charged in the information. Instruction # 1 informed the jury of the elements of the crime charged but under the label "receiving stolen property" rather than grand theft. Defendant made no objection to that part of Instruction # 1. The trial court gave the jury four verdict forms from which to choose:
1. "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Carroll Bradford Holt, guilty of Receiving Stolen Property of a value of one hundred dollars or more but not exceeding two hundred dollars."
2. "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Carroll Bradford Holt, guilty of Receiving Stolen Property of a value of less than one hundred dollars."
3. "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Carroll Bradford Holt, not guilty."
4. "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Carroll Bradford Holt, guilty of Receiving Stolen Property of a value exceeding two hundred dollars."
These verdicts were incorporated verbatim in Instruction # 16 which was submitted to defendant for his consideration before it was given to the jury. Defendant did not object to Instruction # 16. 2 In State v. Shull, 331 N.W.2d 284 (S.D.1983), we noted And when the jury returned verdict number 4 defendant again made no objection regarding the form of the verdict. Melcher v. Boesch Motor Company, 188 Neb. 522, 198 N.W.2d 57 (1972). We have consistently held that the trial court must be given an opportunity to correct any claimed error. Lang v. Burns, 77 S.D. 626, 97 N.W.2d 863 (1959); SDCL 23A-25-4; SDCL 15-6-51(b). Since defendant failed to raise this issue before the trial court, we cannot review it on appeal.
At the close of the State's case, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the State had not proved defendant received any item he is claimed to have received knowing that it had been stolen or believing that it had probably been stolen. This motion was denied. Defendant argues this was error because the knowledge element was not proved. Knowledge that the property was, or probably was, stolen is an essential element of the offense charged.
In determining the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, the test is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, this court must accept that evidence and the most favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom in support of the verdict.
State v. Cook, 319 N.W.2d 809, 811 (S.D.1982) (citations omitted).
The evidence reveals that a Mr. Fischer was convicted of stealing the pickup truck in Wyoming. He brought it to Rapid City and left it at defendant's place of business. The truck disappeared. Parts from the stolen pickup were supplied by defendant to rebuild another pickup. Among such parts, the cab had its serial number removed. When defendant and one Batchelder sold the rebuilt pickup, which contained the stolen parts, they employed an illegal titling procedure which failed to reflect their ownership in the vehicle. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence which establishes that the defendant knew...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...court must be given an opportunity to correct it before we review it on appeal. State v. Heftel, 513 N.W.2d 397 (S.D.1994); State v. Holt, 334 N.W.2d 47 (S.D.1983). This was not done, consequently White's disproportionate punishment issue is not properly before us. Heftel, 513 N.W.2d at 401......
-
State v. Smith
...that the State had not shown that Blakey was unavailable; consequently, we will not consider that objection on appeal. State v. Holt, 334 N.W.2d 47 (S.D.1983). In any event, what the court stated in United States v. Nelson, supra, is applicable If out-of-court declarations were only admissi......
-
State v. Heftel
...level. The trial court must be given an opportunity to correct any claimed error before we will review it on appeal. State v. Holt, 334 N.W.2d 47 (S.D.1983); State v. O'Connor, 265 N.W.2d 709 (S.D.1978). Appellant did not at any time prior to this appeal raise a claim that his sentence was ......
-
State v. Clabaugh
...Appellant did not raise this issue before the trial court, therefore it is not properly before this court on appeal. State v. Holt, 334 N.W.2d 47 (S.D.1983); State v. O'Connor, 265 N.W.2d 709 (S.D.1978). Nevertheless, appellant contends that we may still review the issue under the plain err......