State v. Ortega., 3680.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 3680.,3680. |
| Citation | 7 P.2d 943,36 N.M. 57 |
| Parties | STATEv.ORTEGA. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
In prosecution for larceny of cattle, corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
In prosecution for larceny of two neat cattle, evidence held to sustain conviction.
1. In prosecution for larceny of cattle, the corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2. Evidence examined, its substance stated in the opinion, and held sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appeal from District Court, De Baca County; Harry L. Patton, Judge.
Juan Ortega was convicted of the larceny of two neat cattle, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
In larceny prosecution, corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence, but something more than possession alone must be shown.
Keith W. Edwards of Ft. Sumner, and Carl A. Hatch, of Clovis, for appellant.
E. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant, Juan Ortega, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the district court of De Baca county on the charge of larceny of two neat cattle, the property of Roy Bruner.
[1][2] Roy Bruner testified that about June 1, 1930, he discovered the loss of some young unbranded calves out of his pure-bred herd- one of the finest herds in the Southwest. He reported the loss to the sheriff, and about ten days later two calves were found in the possession of the appellant. On being asked by the sheriff where he got them, he replied: “It is none of your damned business.” He later stated that on April 19th he found the calves exhausted alongside the road, six or eight miles from the pasture where the Bruner cattle were kept, that he picked them up and hauled them to his home, and that the calves were ten or fifteen days old at that time. He did not report finding the calves, and testified that some of his cows had died and that he thought the calves were his. The two calves were identified by experts as being of the same class and quality as the Bruner cattle, and the ages of the calves, as of June 10, were estimated at from two weeks to a month. The sheriff, who qualified as an expert with twenty years' experience in the cattle business, testified that there were no other cattle of the same class in the county.
Rube Sullenger, a witness for appellant, on cross-examination, testified regarding the calves found in the possession of appellant, in part, as follows:
“
1. Appellant maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, and argues that the corpus delicti was not established, nor was the ownership of the animals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Paris
...evidence. State v. Sakariason, 1915, 21 N.M. 207, 153 P. 1034; State v. Chaves, 1921, 27 N.M. 504, 202 P. 694; State v. Ortega, 1932, 36 N.M. 57, 7 P.2d 943. On the question of whether evidence is substantial to establish the corpus delicti, each case must, of course, turn on its own facts.......
-
State v. Buchanan
...circumstantial, State v. Sakariason, 1915, 21 N.M. 207, 153 P. 1034; State v. Chaves, 367; State v. Carter, 1954, 58 N.M. 713, 1932, 36 N.M. 57, 7 P.2d 943; However, a statement, when established as trust-worthy, may properly be considered together with independent or corroborative evidence......
-
State v. Compton, 5486
...This is all that was necessary. State v. Parry, 26 N.M. 469, 194 P. 864; State v. McKinley, 30 N.M. 54, 227 P. 757; State v. Ortega, 36 N.M. 57, 7 P.2d 943; State v. Reed, 55 N.M. 231, 230 P.2d This brings us to the point where all errors assigned and argued have been disposed of except tho......
-
State v. Reed, 5313
...28 N.M. 107, 206 P. 510; Territory v. Harrington, 17 N.M. 62, 121 P. 613; State v. Liston, 27 N.M. 500, 202 P. 696; State v. Ortega, 36 N.M. 57, 7 P.2d 943. The appellants also contend that the trial court erred by refusing to give their requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. The......