State v. Rankin, 6248

• Decision Date: 02 October 1935
• Docket Number: 6248
• Citation: 56 Idaho 64,50 P.2d 3
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. ELLICK RANKIN, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

50 P.2d 3

56 Idaho 64

STATE, Respondent, v. ELLICK RANKIN, Appellant

No. 6248

Supreme Court of Idaho

October 2, 1935

CRIMINAL LAW-RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY-EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF.

1. Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction of receiving stolen wool, knowing same to have been stolen (I. C. A., sec 17-3512).

2. All elements of offense charged must be established beyond reasonable doubt to authorize conviction.

3. Evidence creating nothing more than suspicion of guilt although it be strong suspicion, is insufficient to sustain conviction.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Franklin County. Hon. Jay L. Downing, Judge.

Conviction of crime of receiving personal property, knowing the same to have been stolen. Reversed.

Reversed.

P. J Evans, for Appellant.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the material allegations of the complaint beyond a reasonable doubt. (8 R. C. L., sec. 163, p. 170, Criminal Law.)

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and Ariel L. Crowley, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

The elements of the crime of receiving stolen property are as follows:

a. The property must be stolen.

b. The property must be delivered to the defendant.

c. The defendant must know or have reasonable cause to believe the property was stolen.

d. The defendant must have received the property for his own gain or to prevent the owner from again possessing it. (State v. Janks, 26 Idaho 567, 144 P. 779; sec. 17-3512, I. C. A.; 53 C. J. 503.)

BUDGE, J. Givens, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

Appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of receiving personal property, knowing the same to have been stolen, under the provisions of I. C. A., section 17-3512, and was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for three years, the sentence being commuted to five months in the Franklin county jail. This appeal is from the judgment.

Motion was made by the attorney general to affirm the judgment of conviction for failure upon the part of appellant to file and serve his brief within the time provided by rule 45 of this court. Upon sufficient showing made by appellant the motion was denied and appellant was permitted to file and serve his brief.

The material evidence may be summarized as follows: Appellant while driving through the streets of Brigham City, Utah in an automobile, to which was attached a trailer loaded with wool, was observed by the sheriff of Box Elder county, who followed appellant to the Broom Hide and Seed House where he asked appellant his name and where he obtained the wool. Appellant gave a fictitious name and stated that he had obtained the wool from his own sheep located on the Lew Richardson ranch west of Strevell, Idaho, which statements, upon investigation, proved to be false. The sheriff upon ascertaining the falsity of the statements made by appellant to him questioned appellant further about the discrepancies in his story. It is urged that appellant then made the statement that the wool was "hot" wool and informed the sheriff that if he could find the owner "to go to it," or words to that effect. Appellant in answer to questions by the sheriff and deputy sheriff of Franklin county stated that he had had the wool at his place in Franklin county between a week and ten days and that it was delivered to him at that point. F. D. Olson owned and sheared, during the 1934 season, about 600 head of sheep. Forty fleeces were allegedly stolen from Olson's premises. Olson and his son-in-law, Ostergar, went to Brigham City upon learning that stolen wool had been sold to the Broom Hide and Seed House, and there is evidence in the record that Olson and Ostergar identified, by a peculiar tie used in tying the fleeces, a number...