Skip to content

State v. Smith

State v. Smith, 44 P. 554 (Idaho 1896)

Court: Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 4, 1896
Judges: Heston, Morgan, Sullivan
Citations: 44 P. 5544 Idaho 7331896 Ida. LEXIS 20

Cited by 8

Syllabus

Practice — New Triai. — Exceptions.—To entitle one to have the acT tion of the lower court in granting, or refusing, a new trial in a criminal case, the record must show that an exception was taken to such ruling. The evidence in this case examined and held to sustain verdict. (Syllabus by the court.)

Summary

APPEAL from District Court, Nez .Perees County. The contention by defendant is that the verdict-was against law and evidence; that the only evidence against him is his possession of the property, of which he gives, not only a probable and reasonable explanation, but one which the state had the opportunity to contradict if not true. It is not incumbent on the defendant to establish an innocent connection with the stolen property by a preponderance of proof; if the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to guilty possession, the presumption is rebutted, and he is entitled to an acquittal. (12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 851, 852, and the numerous authorities there cited.) When the circumstances on which the verdict is, based can be reasonably explained by some other hypothesis than, that of the defendant’s guilt, or as perfectly consistent with the defendant’s innocence, then a new trial should be granted. (State v. Nesbit, ante, p. 548, 43 Pac. 66; Bayley v. Baton, 8 Cal. 159; People v. Ah Loy, 10 Cal. 301.) There can be no doubt as a general proposition of law that the exclusive possession of goods recently stolen, is sufficient to put an accused person upon his defense. (3 Eice on Evidence,. 733; People v. Kelly, 28 Cal. 423, 428, 429.) The possession, of the property was circumstantial evidence tending to prove the guilt of defendant, and he should have rebutted this testimony. (State v. Bn, 10 Nev. 277, 281; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242, 249; State v. Haverly, ante, p. 484, 42 Pac. 506.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HESTON, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny in the stealing of three head of cattle. Epon the trial the state proved ownership of the property in one Yeraon, possession by defendant, and sale by defendant to one Bomberg, a butcher in the town of Genesee. Epon the examination of Bomberg it fell out that, upon the sale of the cattle to him by defendant, the latter made to him (Bomberg) what pretended, to be a bill of sale, in which he attempted to state from whom he got the cattle, and it was further proven, on examination of some of the state’s witnesses, that defendant had made statements to them as to whom he procured the cattle from. The defense offered no testimony. It is claimed by appellant that it was incumbent ujdou the state, before a conviction could be had, to disprove the statements which the witnesses for the state testified, defendant had made as to how and of whom he procured the cattle. We know of no rule of law to support such a contention, and onr attention has not been called to any. •

It is claimed by appellant that the evidence does not support the verdict. We think the evidence on the part of the state was abundant to warrant the verdict. We have examined *735 the charge of the court carefully, aud are satisfied that it clearly and fairly states the law.

It is objected by the attorney general that the record does not show that any exception was taken by the defendant to the order of the court overruling his motion for a new trial. We think this objection is well taken. Subdivision 4, section 7942 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, provides for the talcing of exception to an order of the court “in granting or refusing a motion for a new trial.” To entitle an appellant to a review of such order, exception must be saved in the record. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Kenworthy193 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1948)
State v. Maguire169 P. 175 (Idaho 1917)
State v. Black208 P. 851 (Idaho 1922)
State v. Mushrow185 P. 1075 (Idaho 1919)
State v. White197 P. 824 (Idaho 1921)
State v. Ray182 P. 857 (Idaho 1919)

Most recent

State v. Kenworthy193 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1948)
State v. Black208 P. 851 (Idaho 1922)
State v. White197 P. 824 (Idaho 1921)
State v. Subisaretta196 P. 625 (Idaho 1921)
State v. Mushrow185 P. 1075 (Idaho 1919)
State v. Ray182 P. 857 (Idaho 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.