LONG V. STATE AND BLEVINS V. STATE. 1089 LONG V. STATE AND BLEVINS V. STATE. Crim. 4000-4001 - Opinion delivered September 28, 1936. CRIMINAL LAW. — Where, in a prosecution for receiving stolen cattle, H., the owner was permitted to testify to a conversation which he had, in the absence of the accused, with J., one of the parties who stole the cattle, and to state that J. admitted stealing the cattle, no prejudicial error was committed, since J. made the same statement as a witness in the trial and identified the stolen cattle as the property of H., and accused admitted receiving the cattle which J. said he had stolen.. 2. CRIMINAL LAW—EVIDENCE.—Where, in a prosecution for receiving stolen cattle, the theory of the prosecution was that the defendants were engaged in the business of receiving and selling stolen cattle, and that such assistance as J. rendered was essential to the consummation of their general plan, testimony a H. that
4090 LONG 27:: STATE :AND BLEVINS . v., STATE-. .[192 accused proposed to pay him $8 per head for any: cattle witness might steal, and ,, deliver to was -admissible, as _tending :to • show that defendants Were operating pursuant .to a ' general . . pla , n . t o . • r ec . eive, transport, and sell stolen cattle.. * • • : •• • ' Cn*ikiiii-t:AWAccoMPLicks. While it is"true that the *receiver • of Stolen goods' and the thief from : I/ . Thom' he received . them . are ...taccomplices , within. the -meaning of: ,§ 3181:,.,Crawford &' Moses' prov4ling that, one cannot be convicted on the .uncorrohorated testimony, off an , accomplice, this corroboration may pe supPlied by proof of the acts:conduct or declarations of the party inforiiied again gt; , either* before or after' the 'commission 'of t e crime , e testirrionY of : the acconiplice held' 'Sufficiently 'corroboraied. • ! : : :1 ---, f Appeal from e P rairi ' 'Circuit COT O : , Northern iiis-pic,t; , .TY:, !7. : Waggpner , , , Glenn Wimmer . and.W. A..Leach, for appellants. Attorney . G-eneral, and. Gyy: p. P7.11- liams, .Assistant, for appeliee. , . J: ',Appellants- Were, convicted, of, rec,eiving -stolen -property,: and:seek :a.,reversal Of..the -judgments ,sehtencing each of them' toterm of. one year in the peni-tentiary- upon . the-. following ,- assignments . of :error : (1) The admission of certain ineorapetent :testimony ; and (2) the insufficiency of the testimony. They,,Were separately indicted and tried, but as the -cases. are substantially identical they *have been briefed and submitted together. Appellants were charged with receiving the same stolen property, consisting of four Jersey heifers, two of them yellOW,- and . fifteen 'Months" old, ' Ike- other two brown, and eighteen .months old- at the time they were stolen. . f The • iniAictmentS' "alleged : -6-Witership of ' fhe stolen • property-in; Bert -Holt,...-who testified :that the cattle dis-aflpeared from the TM-4e near - his -home the latter 'part 'of MaY, 1935, • and'had hot since been seen by -him. It , iS 'insisted : pat . the, teStimony does hot sufficiently . identify the, cAtle : received by appellants and sold by them •-as Abe cattle belonging, to Holt which disappeared. The cattle were stolen by Ralph and Elten Johnson : and-another 'young man named Sheppard, all Of 'Whom .'cOnfesed'their guilt;. and 'have; pleaded' guilty to the larcenY,_ and haVe . been sentenced . pursuant to their . pleas of. guilty..,,
LONG 41.: STATE A 41.4. 1). !BLEVINS` 'V. STATE. 1091 By way ofcidentifying the:cattle Stdlen by : the Johh-: SonS ; and Sheppard,: Holt •wa : pe'rinitted '.to-teStify.lhat hd.thad coriVersation aboUt-the 'cattle with:Elton JOMF sOn,--in the abseil& 'of 'both appellants, and :that Johnson adthitta stealing -the cattle which Holt described- as his missing-;cattle. 'testimony appears . in -the , record: each , case, ' and•its 'admission is assikned . as error.- If it ! be -conceded that the: admissiOn of 'this testithonY was. error—which we do not decide no l error prejudicial:to either •apellant was eomthitted, -for-the reason that Elton Johuson madd the same' -Statement -as a' witness:in-each-'Moreover,- apPellants admit teceiviivg:thet liead of eattle • which j ohnsou said'he : had stOlen; and the' testimony:'Of 'bOth 'the 'JohnsOns' -at -both -trialS identified, they stolen _cattle as the property . of -Holt.. At: the trial of aPpellant'BleVins-One BuSter-Haynes WaS perthitted • to testifY;- os i er *BleviriS' . 'objeCtimi ; ,:: that abetit • the''tiiine Hdlt's' cattle Were' EleVinS'. had Made hiM apropOsitiOn*td pay'V'per Iread'fOr l Any .6att16 WitheSs 'might Steal' and 'deliver to' Blevins: - Till§ testimony was denied by Blevins, who insists that the' t6sti:-' mony,was, iniompetent; As there was ifio relation betWeen the crime here' charged 'and the- ofieHaYhes:waSisolieited to' . eommit. The case' : of : Mays Ir.. Stettei , 163 Ark:- 232;' 259 S: W. '398;' 'cited to' sustain the' . contention 'that this teStimony 'Was. erroneous, and prejudicial: 'But such, we• is • not its effect: • • • .• In the case just cited-the defendant : WaS convicted Of ' • reeeivirig • stoleti goods'. `The; pi:ogecniion mifted to sh OW that 'at' a 'PreVidiis time othei, §folefi.ptoyil, erty* had'1?e6fi f6tind in . thn posession Of the. accused. Ve held .that'this teStiMony 'did 'net dOmd *Within ti:n r. bf the' excePtions to the gener P at-0er Which evidetfC6 'Of; another crime may be 'ShOWn. So hdldilig we'Said:- `-` ,There 'was'' to attempt 't' 'show that-there ' , was any seheme or' plan or'practice : Whereby' appellant' received' stOlen . goods, or that the dresSes' (the' stolen prOperty-)' were receiVed by' aPpellant purstfaiit Sanme plan; hi the absence .. of j.stibstantial:testimo0' • tending' to show; that it -was- apPellant:'s'business . 'or 'prac-1
1092 LONG- V. STATE AND BLEVINS V.. STATE. [192 tice to receive stolen goods, this testimony was incompetent and prejudicial." But it was there, also, said that * * while the general rule is that evidence of the commission of other crimes is admissible only when such evidence tends, directly or indirectly, to establish the defendant's guilt of the crime charged in the indictment, or some essential ingredient thereof, yet evidence of the commission of other crimes of a similar nature about the same time may be admitted if such testimony tends to show the guilt of the accused of the crime charged by disclosing the criminal intent, guilty knowledge, or identifies the defendant, or is a part of a common scheme or plan embracing two or more crimes so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the other." It was the theory of the prosecution in this case that appellants were engaged in the business,of receiving and selling stolen cattle, and that Blevins had attempted to beguile Haynes into the general conspiracy to steal cattle, in which enterprise such assistance as the Johnsons rendered was essential to the consummation of their general plan. It is reasonably certain that appellants carried Holt's cattle to Memphis and sold them. Their own testimony leaves no doubt about. that fact, and it is equally as certain that the cattle were stolen.. Blevins testified that he was in the business of buying and selling cattle and other live stock and transporting them to market to sell for himself and for others, and he admitted that other live stock so disposed of by him had been stolen by the persons who had employed him to transport their stock to market. He testified that he had , never hauled any stolen property with knowledge that it had been stolen, and that he was unaware that the four heifers here in question had been stolen. It was essential to sustain a conviction to show, not only that the cattle had ; been stolen, but that appellants were aware of that fact when they received the stolen property, and the court so instructed the jury. The testimony of Haynes was competent, therefore, as tending to show that appellants were operating pursuant
ARK.] LONG V. STATE AND BLEVINS V. STATE. 1093 to a general plan to receive, transport and sell stolen cattle, pursuant to which plan such assistance was. re: quired. as Haynes testified he was solicited to render. The Johnsons testified that - they stole the heifers pursuant to their agreement with- appellants that the proceeds of the sale, less the expenses thereof, should be equally divided between Sheppard, themselves, and appellants, and that -they and Sheppard each rece .ived $3 as their part of the net proceeds. The testimony of appellants was to the effect that _appellant Blevins owned a truck which he employed_ appellant Long to 'operate. Long was Blevins' employee, worked for a monthly salary, and had no interest in Blevins' business. Blevins bought and sold live stock. He also transported live stock for others to the Mem-phis market for a charge of 25 cents per hundred pounds. He hauled other freight, and while appellants admit hauling the four heifers to Memphis, where they were sold, they testified that this was done as a carrier for the usual hauling charge, and that they accounted to the Johnsons for the entire net proceeds of the sale, less their hauling charze. If the testimony of the johnsons ' is true -, -there can be- no question about the guilt of appellants of the crime of knowingly receiving the stolen prOperty. But it is very earnestly insisted that there is no corroboration of this testimony sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is true, of course, that the receiver of stolen goods and the thief from whom he received them are accomplices within the meaning of § 3181, Crawford & Moses' Digest. Hester v. State, 1.49: Ark. 625, 233 S. W. 774. This section provides that a conviction cannot be had in anY case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the_ commission of the offense, and that the corroboration -is not sufficient if it merely shows that the offense -was committed and the circumstances thereof. We think the testimony is sufficient to Meet the requirements of this statute. Appellants admit receiving and selling the heifers. It remained, therefore, only to
1094 LONG V. STATE AND BLEVINS' V. STATE: [1.92 prove that they had received them knowing they had been stolen. The testimony of Haynes, above discussed, relates to this issue. There was cOnflicting testimony as to appellants' reputation, and Blevins admitted buying other live stock which later proved to have been stolen, although he denied knowing that fact at the time of their purchase. Appellants admitted that the:truck was sent for tbe heifers after dark, and reached Des _Arc about daylight. There was testiniony to. the effect that it was not unusual to haul live stock at night; indeed, it was preferable to -do so in. the summer, and appellants testified . that after the heifers had been loaded into, the truck it was parked on . one of the principal streets of Des Arc while appellants were endeavoring to get other freight to haul to. Memphis. The Johnsons testified that they.were to redeive one-half . the net proceeds • of the sale. Appellants testified that they hauled the cattle to Memphis as a carrier; and sold them as the agent of thejohnsblis. No sale§ tiCket was offered in evidence showing to whom. and at what price the heifers were sold. Appellants admit , selling the heifers in their own . name, bUt they :stated -this Was the usual method of selling live stock. Blevins' testi-- mony. about the' settlement. with the Johnsons is not :entirely clear, but he stated that he paid them "Somewhere around $20:" After 'all expen§es, such as. sales tax, insurance, yardage, and commission, had been paid, the heifers brought $23,' and he got nothing but -25 cents per hundred pounds for_ hauling them. •The prosecution insists that appellants kne* the Johasons did not own any - cattle, and Blevins -virtually adthits haVing this knoWledge. He testified: "1- figured the cattle belonged to their folks." Larceny and reeeiving stelen property are ctimes. usually committed as clandestinely as possible, yet neith: er party to such crimes can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the other. However, this corroboration may be supplied by proof of the acts, conduct or declarations of the party.informed against-either befote or after the eoininission of the • crime. • Stroud,
1095 v. State, 167 Ark. '502; 268 :S: T W: • 8511 S6, here, the facts • above recited, including the : conduct and admissions of appellants themselves, snffice to furnish the corroboration which.the.law requires. • As no• error appearS,• the jndgments : mast 'be af-. firmed, 'and it . is • so Ordered..
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.