State v. Haynes
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGivens, J.
Appellant urges the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of burglary in the second degree and being a persistent violator because of the following inconsistency and contradiction in the proof submitted by the state, the appellant offering no evidence.
Appellant was charged with burglary as of the 28th of March, 1942, and was sufficiently identified as having entered the complaining witnesses’ house on that day, without the owners’ consent and against their will and without their permission. To prove the essential larcenous intent (Sec. 17-3401,1. C. A.) the state relies upon…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1916
- State v. DarrahIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
- State v. BatesIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- State v. ButlerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. NewtonWashington Supreme Court · 1905
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MundellIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- State v. HaggardIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. KombolIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
- State v. DarrahIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
- Majors v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.