State v. Sakariason
| Decision Date | 16 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 1834.,1834. |
| Citation | 21 N.M. 207,153 P. 1034 |
| Parties | STATEv.SAKARIASON ET AL. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Every criminal charge necessarily involves two distinct propositions: (1) that a criminal act has been committed; (2) that the guilt of such act attaches to the particular person charged with the commission of the offense. Each of these facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt either by direct testimony or by presumptive evidence of the most cogent or irresistible kind. The proof must in both cases be clear and distinct, but it is not necessary that it should be direct and positive. The general rule is now well settled that in all criminal cases the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.
Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, the same will not be set aside.
Appeal from District Court, Socorro County; M. C. Mechem, Judge.
John E. Sakariason and others were convicted of killing one head of neat cattle belonging to another, and appeal. Affirmed.
The appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted at the March, 1915, term of the district court for the county of Socorro upon a charge of killing one head of neat cattle of the property of Francisco Baca. The facts will be more fully stated in the opinion.
Every criminal charge necessarily involves two distinct propositions: (1) that a criminal act has been committed; (2) that the guilt of such act attaches to the particular person charged with the commission of the offense. Each of these facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt either by direct testimony or by presumptive evidence of the most cogent or irresistible kind. The proof must in both cases be clear and distinct, but it is not necessary that it should be direct and positive. The general rule is now well settled that in all criminal cases the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.
M. C. Spicer, of Socorro, for appellants.
H. S. Bowman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The assignments of error presented several grounds as the basis for this appeal, and are predicated upon the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict of not guilty upon defendants' motion made at the close of the state's case, and again made at the close of the entire case, and upon the court's refusal to set aside the verdict of the jury, and discharge the defendants, or grant them a new trial upon their motion made before sentence was passed. The argument in support of these several objections is based very largely upon the alleged failure of the state to prove the corpus delicti and the alleged failure of the state to prove the ownership of the dead animal.
The evidence discloses that the complaining witness, one Francisco Baca, while driving some of his horses in the vicinity of where the animal was killed on the evening of the 14th of January, 1914, met the defendants on a certain trail, having in their possession a freshly killed beef. He testified that his cattle were the only cattle ranging in this particular locality, and that, because of the fact that he had missed other cattle from his range, he was prompted to question the defendants as to where they had procured the beef; that his suspicions were aroused by the conduct and manner of the accused, and he demanded to see the hide of the dead animal, and was stepping forward to examine the same when he was ordered to stop by the defendants, who drew their guns and threatened him with death. The defendants, however, claim that they had no guns with them, and the evidence in this respect is therefore conflicting. The prosecuting witness, Baca, however, testified that he returned to the place of meeting with the defendants on the following morning, and, following the tracks found at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Paris
...302, 243 P.2d 609. It is well settled that the corpus delicti of a crime may be proved by circumstantial 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 e......
-
State v. Buchanan
...58 N.W. 713, 275 P.2d 847; State v. Dena, 1923, 28 N.M. 479, 214 P. 583; which, of course, may be 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 establish......
-
State v. Tipton
...11 N.M. 658, 72 P. 17; Stringfellow & Tannehill v. Petty, 14 N.M. 14, 89 P. 258; James v. Hood, 19 N.M. 234, 142 P. 162; State v. Sakariason, 21 N.M. 207, 153 P. 1034. The jury heard and considered all of the evidence, including the above quoted testimony, that which supported the story of ......
-
Kilpatrick v. State
...law occurred upon the trial. Corkins v. Prichard, 3 N.M. (Gild.) 278, 3 P. 746; Lacey v. Woodward, 5 N.M. 583, 25 P. 785; State v. Sakariason, 21 N.M. 207, 153 P. 1034. As a general rule the court should not direct a verdict of acquittal where there is any evidence to support, or reasonably......