State v. Guffey
State v. Guffey
Opinion of the Court
Defendant, along with H. D. Witherill, Roy W. Howland, and Max Peifer, was jointly charged with the larceny on September 25, 1923, of a red, white-face steer belonging to Henry Karrels. Defendant was tried separately, convicted, sentenced to a term in the penitentiary, and had served more than three years of the sentence when the judgment of conviction was reversed. State v. Guffey, 50 S. D. 548, 210 N. W. 980. The case was again tried, resulting in conviction and a sentence of five years in the penitentiary. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Karrels testified that in the spring of 1923 he turned over 331 head of cattle to Leslie Boe to’ be pastured on the range in Butte and Meade counties; that in the fall when the herd was returned by Boe it was 19 head short; that he did not know how many steers were in the bunch that he turned over nor how many steers he got back, and could not tell whether he had lost any steer in the year 1923 or not; that his cattle were branded KS surrounded by a circle. Boe testified that he ranged cattle of his own and of others along with those of Karrels, about 1,000 in all, and that when Karrels’ cattle were returned they were 19 short, but he knew that at least 7 of these 19 had died, as he had found the carcasses, but did not know what had become of the other 12 head.
About 11 o’clock in the forenoon of September 25th, Fred Wesgate, deputy state sheriff, and Jake Heil, a member of the state sheriff’s force, met appellant on the main highway between Sturgis and Faith, about 20 miles from Sturgis; appellant was going toward Sturgis in a Ford roadster with a homemade box. Wesgate stopped appellant, and, on examining this box, found four quarters
The foregoing, in substance, is a complete summary of the evidence on the part of the state. It is not materially different from the evidence on the first trial, which we held was insufficient to warrant a conviction. State v. Guffey, 50 S. D. 548, 210 N. W. 980. On the second trial there was, if anything, less evidence tending to connect defendant with the larceny of any steer, because on that trial the evidence which we held was erroneously admitted on the first trial was not offered. Whatever may have been the connection of defendant with the meat of a steer belonging to Karrels after it was killed, if any steer of Karrels was in fact killed, there is no evidence tending to> connect defendant with the taking or killing of any such animal, or, in other words, with the alleged larceny, and, if defendant took the meat knowing the animal had been stolen by another or others, he would not thereby be guilty of larceny of the animal. 36 C. J. 850. The evidence raises no more than a suspicion that defendant may have had knowledge of the larceny, but, as was said in State v. Lee, 48 S. D. 29, 201 N. W. 703, 705, “Verdicts cannot be allowed to rest on mere suspicion, or upon a state of facts not shown to exist.”
The judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE v. GUFFEY
- Status
- Published