State v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 14 May 1900
• Parties: STATE v. PALMER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

79 Minn. 428

82 N.W. 685

STATE

v.PALMER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 14, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Wright county; A. E. Giddings, Judge.

Joseph Palmer was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. On the trial of the defendant for stealing a pocketbook containing $13.75 from a dwelling house, the state called a witness who testified that he found the pocketbook and returned it to the owner. The state, over the objection of the defendant, was then permitted to show by the witness that he was the attorney of the defendant in this case, and that three days after the pocketbook was returned, and on the day first set for the hearing of the case before the magistrate, he withdrew from the defense. Held prejudicial error.

2. After the foundation therefor has been laid by the introduction of evidence sufficient, prima facie, to justify a finding by a jury of a conspiracy to commit a crime, the acts and declarations of each conspirator are admissible in evidence against each and all of his co-conspirators, if such acts and declarations were in furtherance of the common purpose. Care, however, must be taken that the declarations or acts thus admitted be those only which were made or done during the pendency of the criminal enterprise, and in furtherance of its objects. Rule applied, and held, that the trial court erred in receiving in evidence the declarations of the defendant's alleged co-conspirator. W. H. Cutting and W. H. Spath, for appellant.

W. B. Douglas, Atty. Gen., and C. A. Pidgeon, Co. Atty., for the State.

START, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree in the district court of Wright county, and sentenced to the state reformatory at St. Cloud. He appealed from the judgment. He assigns 33 errors, but we shall consider only 2 of them. The defendant was charged with having stolen on Monday, July 17, 1899, from the dwelling house of Mr. Levi H. Webster his pocketbook, containing a $10 bill and $3.75 in silver. That the larceny was committed by some one is unquestioned. The state called as a witness Mr. C. M. King, who testified that the day after the defendant was arrested he found a pocketbook, which the evidence tends to show was the one stolen, in which there was a $10 bill, and returned it to Mr. Webster on July 18th, and that he was a lawyer. He then testified, over the objection and exception of the defendant, as follows: ‘Q. Were you acting in that capacity for the defendant at that time,-from the 18th to the 21st? (Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Overruled. Exception.) A. Well, I don't know whether I was or not at the time that I returned the pocketbook. I was his attorney from the 18th to the 20th of July. Q. When did you cease to act as his attorney? (Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Overruled. Exception.) A. On the 21st,-at the end of the day. The Court: That was the day of the first hearing? A. Yes, sir; that is the day that the hearing was set for, but there was an adjournment until the 25th. It was the day of the first hearing that I withdrew from the case.’ This was reversible error, for the evidence was to the effect that the witness was the attorney of the defendant when he found and returned the stolen pocketbook, and that thereafter, and on the day first set for the defendant's hearing, he withdrew from his defense. This evidence was clearly immaterial, and no reason is or can be assigned why it was proper or fair to receive it against the protest of the defendant. It is true that it was competent for the state to trace the stolen property by showing that it had been found and returned...