State v. McFarlin
Citation | 172 P. 371,41 Nev. 486 |
Decision Date | 30 April 1918 |
Docket Number | 2291. |
Parties | STATE v. McFARLIN. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Appeal from District Court, Churchill County; T. C. Hart, Judge.
George B. McFarlin was convicted of embezzlement, and from the judgment, and denial of his motion for new trial, he appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
See also, 167 P. 1011.
James M. Frame and Howard Browne, both of Reno, for appellant.
Geo. B Thatcher, Atty. Gen., and G. J. Kenny, Dist. Atty., of Fallon, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court upon the charge of embezzlement, and appeals from the judgment, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial.
It was urged in the trial court that the information does not charge an offense, and the same objection is presented for our consideration. It is said that the information is bad because (1) there is no allegation that the defendant was authorized to receive the money; (2) there is no allegation that the defendant was intrusted with the money by virtue of his employment; and (3) there is no allegation that defendant was, by virtue of his employment, charged with the duty of receiving the money. To sustain these contentions our attention is called to Ex parte Ricord, 11 Nev. 287; Ricord v. C. P. R. R. Co., 15 Nev. 167; People v. Bailey, 23 Cal. 577; People v. Shearer, 143 Cal. 66, 76 P. 813.
Without undertaking to specifically point out wherein the cases mentioned are not in point, we think it sufficient to say that they were instituted under statutes unlike our present statute. Embezzlement is a statutory crime, and all that is necessary in charging the offense is to follow the statute. The statute under which the case was instituted is section 6653, Revised Laws, and that portion which is of importance in considering the objections urged reads as follows:
It will be seen that the information charges that the defendant was manager of the telephone system; that as such manager there came into his possession and under his control certain money, the property of Churchill county; that it came into his hands for a specific purpose, viz. for transmission to the county treasurer; that while the money was in his possession for that purpose he feloniously and unlawfully converted it to his own use. These allegations seem to fully comply with the requirements of the statute. We think that the information is good.
It is also urged that the trial court erred in overruling an objection to certain pages in the books of account of the telephone system, offered in evidence by the state. This objection should have been sustained, and the failure to do so was prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant was not the bookkeeper, did not understand bookkeeping, was not familiar with the books, and his attention was never directed to the items on the pages introduced in evidence. It is a general rule that where an employé of a concern is on trial for embezzlement neither the books, nor portions of the books of the concern, which are not in the defendant's handwriting, are legal evidence against him, unless there be testimony tending to show that his attention was called to them and that he made some admission in regard to the portion offered in evidence. Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 46, 12 So. 183. In People v. Burnham, 119 A.D. 302, 104 N.Y.S. 725, which was a case similar to the one at bar, it was said:
In People v. Blackman, 127 Cal. 248, 59 P. 573, where this identical question was before the court, it was said:
See, also, Rudd v. Robinson, 126 N.Y. 113, 26 N.E. 1046, 12 L. R. A. 473, 22 Am. St. Rep. 816; State v. Carmean, 126 Iowa, 291, 102 N.W. 97, 106 Am. St. Rep. 352; People v. Rowland, 12 Cal.App. 6, 106 P. 428.
It is next contended that the trial court should have excluded the evidence offered relative to the defendant's playing slot machines. The testimony shows no gambling on the part of the defendant, other than by playing slot machines for "bingles," which were good in trade only, and the extent to which he is shown to have indulged in the practice was not extensive. Under the circumstances, we think the objection to this testimony should have been sustained.
Evidence of other shortages than that charged in the information was admitted upon the trial of this case, and in instructing the jury, before the case was submitted, the court gave, at the request of counsel for the defendant, the following instruction:
Some hours after the case had been submitted, the jury returned into court and made it clear that they did not fully understand the purposes for which they might consider the evidence of other shortages than that charged in the information. After some discussion, the court instructed the jury orally as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. State
...Hill, but only for the limited purpose of showing his intent and motive to commit the crimes with which he was charged. State v. McFarlin, 41 Nev. 486, 172 P. 371 (1918); Brown v. State, 81 Nev. 397, 404 P.2d 428 Since the defense of entrapment focuses on an appellant's predisposition to co......
-
Bigpond v. State
...To the extent that our prior opinions indicate that NRS 48.045(2) codifies the broad rule of exclusion adopted in State v. McFarlin, 41 Nev. 486, 494, 172 P. 371, 373 (1918), we overrule those opinions. See, e.g., Rowbottom v. State, 105 Nev. 472, 485, 779 P.2d 934, 942 (1989), overruled on......
-
State v. Teeter
... ... 617] the jewelry store ... robbery, same would constitute evidence of an offense other ... than that for which the defendant was on trial, and was ... inadmissible in view of the then state of the record, and ... highly prejudicial to the defendant. State v ... McFarlin, 41 Nev. 486, 172 P. 371. Unless a proper ... foundation is laid showing such testimony tends to show ... intent, motive, or that the several offenses are part of a ... general plan or scheme, or that they are part of the res ... gestae, such testimony is not admissible. State v ... ...
-
McMichael v. State
...not clear, the evidence should be excluded. Kelley, supra; Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41, 334 P.2d 524 (1959); State v. McFarlin, 41 Nev. 486, 172 P. 371 (1918). Whenever a confrontation occurs between relevancy and the general rule that protects the accused against prejudice likely......