State v. Laris

Decision Date15 August 1931
Docket Number4945
Citation78 Utah 183,2 P.2d 243
CourtUtah Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. LARIS

Appeal from District Court, Fourth District, Uintah County; Geo. W Worthen, Judge.

Louis Laris was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.

H. L Mulliner and E. D. Hatch, both of Salt Lake City, and Ray E Dillman, of Roosevelt, for appellant.

Geo. P. Parker, Attorney General, and L. A. Miner, Deputy Attorney General, both of Salt Lake City, for the State.

EPHRAIM HANSON, J. STRAUP, J., ELIAS HANSEN, J., concurring. FOLLAND J., CHERRY, C. J., dissenting.

OPINION

EPHRAIM HANSON, J.

The defendant was convicted in the district court of Uintah county of grand larceny and sentenced to an indeterminate term in the penitentiary. From the conviction and judgment he appeals.

By appropriate assignments of error the appellant inter alia challenges the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction on the testimony of an accomplice.

The defendant alone is accused of having committed the crime. In the information it is charged that the defendant on or about the 9th day of August, 1929, "did feloniously take, steal and drive away two head of white faced heifers each branded PV on the right ribs, the property of C. W. Killian, with intent to deprive the owner of said animals."

It appears that C. W. Killian, one of the state's witnesses, was a resident of Roosevelt and owned about sixty head of various breeds of cattle, which he kept, during the summer months, in a 160-acre pasture at Leeton. The pasture is situated in Uintah county, about nine miles from Roosevelt. It further appears, without conflict, that Edgar Greenstick, and Indian, stole the two heifers described in the information, together with a white-faced cow, from Mr. Killian's pasture, and drove them about two and three-fourths miles to a pasture belonging to Johnny White, an Indian. Johnny White was married to Greenstick's cousin, and lived on the place to which the cattle were driven. The defendant was not present, nor is it contended that he took part in the actual taking and driving of the animals to Johnny White's place. Just the exact date on which the larceny was committed cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Mr. Killian testified he was at his pasture on August 4, 1929, for the purpose of tending to a stream of water which he then had running on his land, and that while there he saw the heifers. He made a count of his cattle at that time. His count, however, showed but fifty-six head when there should have been sixty-one. Except for the statement of Mr. Killian and the testimony of the Indian, the animals might have been taken as early as the latter part of July, but it is certain they could not have been taken from Killian's pasture later than the 6th of August.

It is conceded by the prosecution that the Indian, Greenstick, is an accomplice, and to sustain the verdict against the defendant the Indian's testimony in respect to the defendant's complicity in the crime must be corroborated. The Indian's testimony was received through an interpreter, and there is considerable confusion and some marked contradictions in portions of his testimony. We are giving what appears to us a full and fair statement of those features of his testimony which it is contended involves the defendant in the commission of the larceny. Some time after March 3, 1929, the Indian, according to his testimony, met the defendant near White Rocks, on the public highway. They had a conversation which resulted in an understanding between them that the defendant would pay him if he would go out and get or "rustle" some cattle for the defendant. On July 22d, which was the opening day of the sun dance, an Indian ceremony held at White Rocks, the Indian came to the defendant's home at Roosevelt and talked some more on what he called "the deal." This meeting, according to his testimony, resulted in the defendant advancing him $ 4 for the sun dance, and the defendant telling him to go above or in the vicinity of Hayden and get some cattle.

In this connection we may here state, parenthetically, that the defendant testified that the Indian said to the defendant that he had a couple of cows he wanted to sell him. The defendant then told the Indian that he was going to Bingham that same day or the day following. The Indian said he wanted to sell the cows so he could get some money for the sun dance. The defendant told him that he would be gone for three or four days, and the Indian then asked the defendant if he could not give him a few dollars to spend at the sun dance, and the defendant gave him a check for $ 4 and told him that when he came back that he would go up and look at his cows. This check was received in evidence on the defendant's offer.

After the sun dance, the Indian took two or three head of cattle from somewhere in the vicinity of Hayden and drove them away, and put them in some other pasture from which they shortly broke out. As the Indian was on his way down to Roosevelt to inform the defendant that he had some cattle, he saw the cattle on the highway and put them into the corral at the "Poor Farm." He then went down to see the defendant, and the defendant promised to meet him at the corral, but failed to keep his appointment. The cattle broke out of the corral, or some one turned them loose. On August 4, 1929, while on the way to Roosevelt to tell the defendant of the fact, he met the defendant at a Mr. Timothy's place, near the "Gyp" plant north of Roosevelt.

Whatever was said or done on this occasion took place in the presence and hearing of Mr. Timothy and a Mr. Davis, of Vernal, both of whom were witnesses for the defendant at the trial. There is a sharp conflict between the testimony given by the defendant and his witnesses and the testimony given by the Indian as to what was there said and done. It is sufficient to say in respect to the testimony as to this event--and the prosecution does not claim anything to the contrary--that, except for the testimony of the Indian, there is nothing which tends to connect the defendant even remotely or in the slightest degree with the commission of the offense charged. We will not, therefore, advert further to the evidence of what was there said and done, except to now say that the Indian testified that the defendant there told him to go up to Leeton and get some cattle, and, when he had taken and placed them, to come and let the defendant know. There is some uncertainty in his testimony as to the exact place he was to deliver the animals, but we think a fair conclusion of the evidence is that it was to be at the corral of Johnny White. He testified that he alone then went up to Killian's pasture at Leeton and took and drove away the cattle as has already been stated. Very early on the morning of August 7th, he went down to the defendant's home at Roosevelt and told the defendant that he had the cattle. As the defendant had already made his plans for that day to go to Price, he could not go up for the cattle until the following day, August 8th. From this point there is little material conflict between the testimony of the defendant and the Indian. When the defendant told the Indian he could not go up for the animals until the morrow, the Indian asked the defendant for money to get a tire for his Ford car, so that he could take his squaw to the Uintah Basin industrial celebration to be held at Ft. Duchesne on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of August. With the defendant's permission, the Indian went to a garage at Roosevelt and secured the tire on the credit of the defendant, after which he came back to defendant's residence and got a check for $ 4 which the defendant testified he advanced to him as an accommodation to the Indian on the strength of his repeated statements that he had the "cows" for sale, and of the Indian's manifest anxiety about being able to get his car in shape so as to permit him and his squaw to attend the celebration. On the defendant's offer, this check was also received in evidence.

On the 8th day of August, the defendant, having with him his eleven year old boy, went to Johnny White's place, and, with the assistance of Greenstick, loaded the two heifers into his truck. The loading occurred between 9:30 and 11 o'clock a. m. As soon as he came to the corral, the defendant saw and greeted Johnny White, who was some distance away attending to a stream of water running on his land. Before leaving the corral, the defendant gave Greenstick another check for $ 10. This check, too, was received in evidence on the defendant's own offer as a part of his direct examination. The balance due the Indian was to be paid when the defendant has disposed of them at Price. The defendant hauled the two heifers to Roosevelt, taking the usual and ordinary route. He unloaded them at 12:30 p. m. into an open corral situated alongside the general highway from which they were seen within thirty minutes by Mr. Killian, the owner, as he was driving past on his way to Ft. Duchesne. Mr. Killian went to the corral and immediately recognized the heifers as being his own. They had both his marks and brand. Soon thereafter Mr. Killian had a conversation with the defendant wherein the defendant told Mr. Killian that he had bought them from the Indian, Edgar Greenstick. That afternoon, while attending the Uintah Basin industrial celebration at Ft. Duchesne, the defendant was arrested.

The defendant lives at Roosevelt, Duchesne county, and has been engaged in the business of buying and selling cattle, hogs and poultry for more than twelve years. He conducts a sort of slaughteryard, and sometimes kills the animals and vends the meat. Edgar Greenstick, the Indian, has a small farm on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Cragun
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1934
    ... ... of criminal procedure. It would seem reasonable that the term ... "corroboration" as employed in both such sections ... should be given the same significance. R. S. 1933, 105-32-18 ... has been construed and applied a great many times by this ... court. State v. Laris, 78 Utah 183, 2 P.2d ... 243; State v. Cox, 74 Utah 149, 277 P. 972; ... State v. Butterfield, 70 Utah 529, 261 P ... 804; State v. Lay, 38 Utah 143, 110 P. 986; ... State v. Spencer, 15 Utah 149, 49 P. 302 ... It has been uniformly held that the test of the sufficiency ... ...
  • Slayton v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1936
    ...innocence of the accused. People v. Kempley, 205 Cal. 441, 271 P. 478; State v. Jones, 95 Mont. 317, 26 P.2d 341, 343; State v. Laris, 78 Utah, 183, 2 P.2d 243, 246. the Jones Case, supra, it was said: "Where the facts and circumstances relied upon for corroboration are as consistent with i......
  • State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1963
    ...1 above; and State v. Pettit, 97 Utah 443, 93 P.2d 675.3 Cf. State v. Harcombe, 48 Utah 89, 158 P. 1096 (1916); and see State v. Laris, 78 Utah 183, 2 P.2d 243 (1931); Leonard v. People, Colo., 369 P.2d 54 (1962); Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 P. 476 (1918); State v. Wood, 188 Kan. 833......
  • State v. Harries, 7273
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 19, 1950
    ...(3) that there was an agreement and understanding that his official action would be influenced by the payment received. In State v. Laris, 78 Utah 183, 2 P.2d 243, 246, this court announced the rule with respect to corroboration in the following 'In applying this statute, this court has fre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT