State v. Pullos, 8236
| Decision Date | 04 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 8236,8236 |
| Citation | 76 Idaho 369,283 P.2d 590 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Danny Nick PULLOS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Anderson & Anderson, Pocatello, for appellant.
Graydon W. Smith, Atty. Gen., J. Clinton Peterson, T. J. Jones, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., Hugh C. Maguire, Jr., Pocatello, for respondent.
The information charges that on February 9, 1953, appellant did offer and give a bribe of $50 to one Benham, a liquor law enforcement officer of the department of law enforcement for the liquor law division of the State of Idaho charged with enforcement of the liquor laws of this State with intent to unlawfully, wilfully, corruptly and feloniously influence such officer to receive or secure immunity from arrest, prosecution or punishment for a violation or contemplated violation of the liquor laws of this State.
The trial court overruled appellant's motion to quash the information and his general and special demurrer thereto. He then pleaded not guilty to the charge. He represented himself in the ensuing trial which resulted in his conviction January 5, 1954.
March 1, 1954, the trial court ordered the sentencing of appellant to be withheld for three years and that he be paroled on specified conditions. July 7, 1954, appellant moved the court for revocation of the order placing him on parole, that he be permitted to furnish bond and, that the court hear and determine his motion for new trial, which motion the court thereupon denied.
September 27, 1954, the trial court sentenced appellant to serve a term in the state penitentiary not exceeding five years, and that he pay a fine of $1,000 provided, that if he pay the fine within ten days the trial court would revoke the requirement of penitentiary servitude, to which sentence appellant registered objection. The trial court then granted a certificate of probable cause, and thereupon, through his present counsel, appellant perfected his appeal.
Appellant has assigned the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of the charge of bribery.
Respondent's case upon which it must rely to sustain the conviction of appellant of the charge of bribery, developed from testimony of its law enforcement officers, appears to be as follows: The Sunday afternoon of February 8, 1953, at about 4:15 P.M., appellant told Officer Benham, in front of the latter's residence in Blackfoot, 'how hard it was for him (Pullos) to operate the Phoenix Bar in Pocatello without making some kind of a violation there.' Appellant asked the officer's house number and inquired his address two or three times; then upon leaving, appellant remarked to the officer, 'George, if you should receive a letter that isn't signed through the mail, you will know who it is from.' The next day the officer received a letter entirely typewritten, including the name 'Bill' of the ostensible sender, reading as follows:
'Dear George:
'Thanks. * * *
'Bill'
The letter enclosed $50 in currency.
Late afternoon of February 9th, Officer Benham met with appellant in a tourist cabin at Pocatello. Four additional officers, unbeknown to appellant, occupied an adjoining room; they had connected up a machine for tape recording the conversation of Benham and appellant. One officer in the adjoining room made some observations of Benham and appellant through a hole in the door occasioned by removal of the door knob; such officer also caught snatches of the conversation of Benham and appellant. Officer Benham confronted appellant with the typewritten letter and the $50 in currency and inquired what he, Benham, was expected to do for the $50. Appellant denied knowledge of the $50 but neither admitted nor denied the letter. Several similar versions of ensuing converation show, in effect, that if Officer Benham, in checking the place of business in Pocatello, which appellant managed,--the Phoenix Bar,--found a violation, appellant would appreciate Officer Benham giving him, appellant, a chance to correct the situation before making an arrest.
Respondent asserts that during the meeting of Officer Benham and appellant, February 9th, that the typewritten letter did not come in contact with either of appellant's hands. A finger print expert found upon the letter the prints of a thumb and finger of appellant. The letter was not typed on the certain typewriter which belonged to appellant.
The State did not introduce in evidence the tape recording of the conversation between Officer Benham and appellant, although one officer testified that he had listened to it.
Respondent sought to establish the corpus delicti by attempting to show that appellant gave or offered the $50 to the law enforcement officer with felonious intent; but the evidence fails sufficiently to show either the offering or giving of the $50, or appellant's felonious intent, thereby to influence 'such officer to receive or secure immunity from arrest, prosecution or punishment for a violation or contemplated violation of the liquor laws of the State of Idaho' (quoting from the information).
The evidence, not in conflict, showing such lack of proof, and particularly in relation to the dates, both February 8 and February 9, 1953, is illustrated by testimony elicited from the officers, respondent's witnecesses, as follows:
The testimony of Officer Benham:
'Q. (By Pullos) * * * At that time (Feb. 8, 1953, at Blackfoot) * * * did I ask you to perform anything for me that was contrary to the way you had been performing it and contrary to the best rules of integrity of your office? A. No, sir.
'Q. At that time did I offer to give you fifty dollars? A. No, sir. * * *
'Q. Well, these places are licensed by the State, and if you walk in and see a violation or what you think may be a violation, what is your policy? What do you do? A. Well, there is times when we make arrests, or there might be times when we have seen fit to warn someone on some violation that he might be committing, to put him straight on it, and try to get him to cooperate with the law.
'Q. Well, what determines whether you make an arrest, or whether you don't. They are both violations, aren't they? A. Possibly, yes. It is kind of hard to answer that question. All I can say is on that, so far as that particular part of it is concerned, there is some cases that might warrant an arrest, and there might be other cases where we could gain just as much by warning someone. * * *
'Q. You don't always arrest people when you see a violation; is that correct? A. That is correct.
'Q. And some times when you see a violation, you do warn them about it, and don't arrest them; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. * * *
'Q. Was it a general discussion, or was I asking you to do something for me? A. A general discussion, so far as I can recall it was to the extent that you told me how much trouble you had in the Phoenix Bar with the operation of it in regard to transient workers, and Negroes and Indians inhabiting the place and causing a lot of trouble. You also stated that you would appreciate it if I would walk in and tell you if you were in violation, rather than to arrest you. * * *
'Q. I didn't ask you not to arrest me for any violation? A. No; you did not.
'Q. Did you make the statement to me that you would treat me the same as anyone else? A. I did.
'Q. Then * * * I did not in any way attempt to influence (you) to allow me to violate any laws, or to give you any money, or ask you to do anything for me that you weren't doing for someone else? A. No, I wouldn't say that you did; no, sir. * * *
'Q. You had no reason to know that letter was from me * * *? A. Absolutely not. I didn't know who it was from, for sure. * * *
'Q. On February...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hatton
...had unless the corpus delicti, that is the fact that a crime has been actually perpetrated, is first established.' State v. Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 373, 283 P.2d 590, 593 (1955). It is the duty of the state to prove all elements of the crime charged, even where the defendant concedes the fact......
-
State v. Cutler
...One of the material allegations placed in issue by a plea of not guilty is that of the corpus delicti of the crime. State v. Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P.2d 590 (1955); State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho 68, 199 P. 647 (1921); State v. McClurg, 50 Idaho 762, 300 P. 898 (1931); State v. McLennan, 40......
-
State v. Trimming
...reasonable doubt. State v. Rankin, 56 Idaho 64, 50 P.2d 3 (1935); State v. Varnes, 67 Idaho 183, 174 P.2d 200 (1946); State v. Pullos, 76 Idaho, 369, 283 P.2d 590 (1955). The statutory provision that any speed in excess of the specified or established limits shall be prima facie evidence th......
-
State v. Bishop, 9630
...be had, the State must establish the accused's guilt of the crime charged by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 382 P.2d 590 (1955); State v. Varnes, 67 Idaho 183, 174 P.2d 200 (1946); State v. Rankin, 56 Idaho 64, 50 P.2d 3 (1935). Here the non-existen......