Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 04 April 1931
• Docket Number: A-7784.
• Citation: 297 P. 826,50 Okla.Crim. 310
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

297 P. 826

50 Okla.Crim. 310

WILSON et al. v. STATE.

No. A-7784.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 4, 1931

Syllabus by the Court.

Intent to commit crime may be shown by indirect evidence, and is to be gathered from all facts and circumstances in case; all law requires is that evidence of intent to commit crime be made to appear to satisfaction of jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Direct evidence of the intent to commit crime is not essential.It may be shown by indirect evidence, as well as direct, and intent is to be gathered from all of the facts and circumstances in the case.If the evidence of such intent be made to appear to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all the law requires.

Indictment for burglary which charges breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny is sufficient; indictment for burglary need not allege who owned goods which were in building or whose goods defendant intended to steal.

An indictment which charges a breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny is sufficient.It need not be alleged who owned the goods that were in the building, nor whose goods defendant intended to steal.

Appeal from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.

May Wilson and another were convicted of second degree burglary and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Tillman & Tillman, of Pawhuska, for plaintiffs in error.

J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Edward Crossland, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

CHAPPELL J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the district court of Osage county of the crime of burglary in the second degree, and their punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of two years.

The evidence of the state was that on the 11th day of June, 1929defendants broke into and entered the home of John W. Davis and stole and carried away a grip containing various articles of clothing and jewelry of the aggregate value of $100.

Defendants admit entering the house and taking the property, but declare their intention was not to steal but to play a practical joke on one Glendenning, who they thought lived at that place; that they took the grip and contents and placed them under a culvert.

Defendants assign twenty-four alleged errors of the trial court, but brief and argue but two questions.

First, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Under this assignment defendants argue that the evidence of the state is insufficient to establish the unlawful intent of the defendants.

Direct evidence of the intent to commit crime is not necessary.It may be shown by indirect evidence, as well as direct, and intent is to be gathered from all of the facts and circumstances in the case.If the evidence of such intent be made to appear to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all the law requires.

16 Corpus Juris, 773, states the rule:

"The elements of the offense may be established by circumstantial evidence, where direct evidence is not available."

A person is presumed to intend the natural, probable, and usual consequences of his acts.People v. Moxley,17 Cal.App. 466, 120 P. 43;State v. Asal,79 Mont 385, 256...