State v. Sanford
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction. That the proof showed nothing but a bare possession of recently stolen property which was explained by defendant, and there was no contradiction except the prosecuting witness.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction. That the proof showed nothing but a bare possession of recently stolen property which was explained by defendant, and there was no contradiction except the prosecuting witness. The cases relied on by appellant are: State v. Seymour, 7 Idaho, 257, 61 Pac. 1033; State v. Marquardsen, t Idaho, 352, 62 Pac. 1034.) Appellant relies upon the eases of State v. Marquardsen, and State v. Seymour. In the Marquardsen case it is true the defendant, as in this ease, explained…
1Opinion of the CourtQuaeles, C. J.
— The appellant was prosecuted in the district court in and for Nez Perees county upon a criminal complaint charging him with the crime of grand larceny, was tried, by a jury, convicted, and duly sentenced by judgment of said court. He moved for a new trial, which was denied him, and from the judgment of conviction and order denying a new trial appeals to this court.
The first error assigned is as follows: “The court erred in his charge to the jury in reference to the possession of recently stolen property — more particularly the words fis a guilty circumstance, and should be considered by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. SeymourIdaho Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. MarquardsenIdaho Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. VanekIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
- State v. DavisIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- State v. BogrisIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. KombolIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
- State v. TrowbridgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.