State v. Price, 10496
| Decision Date | 30 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 10496,10496 |
| Citation | 93 Idaho 615,469 P.2d 544 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Larry Cleveland PRICE, Defendant-Appellant, and Curtis Lee Alexander and Patricia Alexander, Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Rayborn, Rayborn, Webb & Pike, Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.
Robert M. Robson, Atty. Gen., and Stewart A. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
The defendant-appellant, Larry Cleveland Price, together with defendants Curtis Lee Alexander and Patricia Alexander, were charged with the crime of grand larceny alleged to have been committed in Buhl, Twin Falls County, Idaho, in September, 1968. Price and Patricia Alexander were tried before a jury and found guilty as charged on May 20, 1969. At the end of the State's case the appellant moved that the jury be given an advisory instruction to acquit. That motion was denied. Subsequent to the trial and sentencing, appellant made a motion for a new trial, which motion was also denied. Appeal has been taken from the judgment of the court and its order denying the motion for a new trial. Appellant offered no evidence in the trial court, and it was his contention there, as it is here, that the prosecution failed to prove him guilty of grand larceny beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of law.
The prosecution was compelled to rely on inferences to be drawn from uncontroverted circumstances in order to prove its case at trial. On September 27, 1968, Iris Erb, who, with her husband, operates Erbs' market, in Buhl, placed $1,000 in five and ten dollar bills in a blue bag in a cashbox under the #4 checkstand in that store. The total in the bag was then approximately $1,500 in bills of the same denominations. During the afternoon the employees of the market removed nearly $300 from the bag in order to change large bills and to cash customers' checks. At 5:30 p. m., Mrs. Erb removed $50 from the cashbox. She estimated that, at that time, there was $1,200 in the bag which contained only five and ten dollar bills.
The cashbox at the #4 checkstand was easily reached from the aisle of the #3 checkstand in Erbs' Market. The two are separated by only a four foot high plywood partition. The key to the box was left on the cash register of the 4th checkstand by Mrs. Erb.
Between 5:30 and 6:00 p. m., appellant and his co-defendants entered Erbs' Market. Defendant Patricia Alexander proceeded to purchase a bottle of soft drink at the #3 checkstand. While the cash register operator opened the bottle for her, appellant and defendant Curtis Lee Alexander 'stood very close together' behind the scales of the #3 checkstand with apparently easy access to the cashbox in the #4 checkstand. Appellant then walked to the back of the store and returned to another checkstand to purchase a loaf of bread and some lunch meat. While he was doing this, defendant Curtis Lee Alexander had walked out to a car, a gold Cougar with Oregon license plates. Upon noticing that he was being watched, he then walked to the front of the car and then around and back to the door of the driver's side. The defendants' car was next seen being driven back and forth on Maple Street in Buhl. When the appellant left Erbs' Market he was seen walking towards Maple Street, and the blue money bag which, at 5:30 p. m., had contained approximately $1,200, was found empty at the corner of Maple and Ninth Streets at about 6:30 p. m.
At approximately 6:40 p. m. Mr. Erb discovered that the bag of five and ten dollar bills was missing. Upon discovering that the bag had not been placed in the store's safe or otherwise secured by either an employee or Mrs. Erb, Mr. Erb called the police and reported a robbery.
Shortly after 7:00 p. m. on September 27, 1968, a state police officer and a state liquor control officer, having been advised by radio that the gold Cougar with Oregon license plates was rapidly coming their way, positioned themselves near the Burley Interchange on I-80N. When they saw the car and they began following it, the defendants decelerated very rapidly and pulled off of the interstate highway onto the roadway into Burley. There they drove into the rear parking area of a service station, and defendant Patricia Alexander hurriedly exited from the car. The officers made no attempt to stop her, but went to the defendants' automobile and asked the two male defendants why they were in a hurry. The defendants responded that they were coming from Bliss and that they were in no hurry.
Patricia Alexander had, by this time, crossed the street to another service station. She stood in front of this second station for a short while, and then she walked toward the side in which the women's restroom was located. When next observed, she was leaving that area and was stopped by the attendant and presented to the police. Later, after Miranda warnings had been given to her, Patricia Alexander was asked why she had run from the car. She responded with words indicating that her male companions had told her to 'jump and run.'
Later that night the police, having searched the gold Cougar automobile and having found none of the stolen money, returned to search the filling stations where the defendants had been arrested. There, beneath an inter-liner of a waste receptacle in the women's restroom of the second service station, they found a parcel wrapped in toilet paper. This oblong bundle contained $1,215, in five and ten dollar bills.
Appellant, as his fourth assignment of error, asserts that the district court erred in giving its instruction number eleven.
'You are advised that the evidence offered by the State for the purpose of offering proof on some of the essential elements of the crime alleged is entirely circumstantial in nature. Circumstantial evidence must always be viewed with caution, and before any defendant may be found guilty upon circumstantial evidence, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of that defendant and inconsistent with the innocence of that defendant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abdullah
...therefrom by probable deductions. A mere possibility of innocence will not render a verdict of guilty a nullity. State v. Price, 93 Idaho 615, 617, 469 P.2d 544, 546 (1970) (footnotes omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). By arguing that the evidence showed Abdullah was trying to sav......
-
State v. Fenley
...92 Idaho 159, 438 P.2d 904 (1968). A mere possibility of innocence will not invalidate a verdict of guilty on appeal. State v. Price, 93 Idaho 615, 469 P.2d 544, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 959, 91 S.Ct. 359, 27 L.Ed.2d 268 (1970). We conclude that the jury's verdict in this case is supported by......
-
State v. Stoddard, 14085
...offered by the state to prove some of the essential elements of the crime is entirely circumstantial in nature. State v. Price, 93 Idaho 615, 469 P.2d 544 (1970). Moreover, it is recommended that where the evidence is substantially circumstantial, the court give an instruction that both dir......
-
State v. Tisdel
...but that alone is insufficient reason to upset a jury verdict. State v. Stevens, 93 Idaho 48, 454 P.2d 945 (1969); State v. Price, 93 Idaho 615, 469 P.2d 544 (1970). It is our conclusion there was substantial and competent, though conflicting, evidence to sustain this verdict, and hence, th......