Suggs v. State

• Decision Date: 15 February 1930
• Docket Number: A-7081.
• Citation: Suggs v. State, 285 P. 985, 46 Okla.Crim. 340 (Okla. Crim. App. 1930)
• Parties: SUGGS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

285 P. 985

46 Okla.Crim. 340

SUGGS v. STATE.

No. A-7081.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 15, 1930

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the evidence is circumstantial, yet if it is such that it will reasonably support the verdict and judgment, the case will not be reversed upon the ground of insufficient evidence.

A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on the ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence, unless, after an examination of the entire record it appears that there has probably been a miscarriage of justice or that defendant has been deprived of a constitutional or statutory right.

A verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause which existed before the juror was sworn, but which was unknown to the defendant until after conviction, unless it appears from the whole case that the defendant suffered injustice from the fact that the juror served in the case.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of larceny of live stock.

Appeal from District Court, Carter County; John B. Ogden, Judge.

Edwin Suggs was convicted of larceny of live stock, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Sigler & Jackson, of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

CHAPPELL J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Carter county on a charge of larceny of live stock and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for two years. It is from this conviction that he appeals. The defendant was jointly charged with Walter Smith and Charles Henderson with having stolen three cows and two heifers from one Jack Roberts, on or about the 20th day of September, 1927.

The evidence of the state was that Roberts lived a short distance west of the town of Berwyn in Carter county and that the defendant was engaged in the meat market business in the town of Berwyn; that Roberts had several head of cattle which he kept on his place west of Berwyn, and that these cattle were last seen by him on the 19th day of September, 1927; that on the 20th day of September, 1927, the defendant shipped these particular cattle by automobile truck to Oklahoma City; that two drivers for the J. L. Wilson Truck Company of Ardmore were called to the home of Charles Henderson about 2 o'clock on the morning of September 20th, to take some cattle to Oklahoma City; that they loaded these cattle on the trucks at the Henderson place about 4 o'clock in the morning and delivered them to the Oklahoma Livestock Commission at the stock yards in Oklahoma City, upon the express orders of the defendant who was present on the Henderson farm and helped to load the cattle, and who had the proceeds of the sale of the cattle sent to him through a bank in Ardmore, Okl. The hides of these cattle were afterwards identified by Roberts as being off the cattle that were stolen from him on September 19, 1927.

The defendant admitted that he was present and helped load the cattle and that he received the proceeds from the sale of these particular cattle, but claims that these cattle had been purchased by him, from Roberts, in July, 1927, and had been kept on the Henderson place until September 20th, when they were shipped to Oklahoma City; and that defendant did not steal any cattle or assist any others in stealing any cattle from Roberts, in September, 1927. The defendant admitted everything that the state proved against him except that these were the cattle taken in September, 1927. The issue of fact before the jury was whether the cattle had been stolen by the defendant and his codefendants or whether the cattle had been purchased by defendant from Roberts. The jury found this issue in favor of the state, and, there being sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, the cause must be affirmed unless the errors complained of by the defendant have deprived him of his constitutional or statutory rights.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain alleged incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial testimony over the objections of the defendant. The whole controversy under this assignment relates to the sufficiency of the identification of these cattle by the prosecuting witness Jack Roberts. There was no controversy but that Roberts had stolen from him certain cattle on September 19, 1927. The controverted issue of fact in the case is whether or not the cattle Suggs sold Wilson and Company on September 20, 1927, were the cattle stolen from Roberts or whether they were cattle Suggs had bought from Roberts in July, 1927. The prosecuting witness had testified that the hides he...