McDaniels v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Paris

    76 N.M. 291 (N.M. 1966)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that "the confession of an accused, not a part of the res gestae," as well as a confession that is part of the res gestae of a crime, may be used to prove the commission of the corpus delicti of a crime

    Defendant was charged under § 40-45-2, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which states: "Every person who shall commit the crime of larceny, by stealing of the property of another any money, goods or chattels * * * shall be punished as provided in section 40-45-1 * * *." In McDaniels v. State, 1943, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191, the court considered the meaning of the word "steal" as used, undefined, in a larceny statute. There the court said:

  2. State v. Downing

    205 P.2d 141 (Or. 1949)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the jury reasonably could find that the defendant and another person jointly possessed a stolen watch that defendant knew was in their shared living area and that had been acquired through their joint efforts

    When the word `steal' is used it means to take and carry away property of another with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to appropriate the same to one's own use. It must be noted that when the word `steal' is used either in the information or in an instruction, that it carries with it the meaning that the property converted is by felonious intent." McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Criminal Reports 84, 139 P.2d 191. During the argument before this court attention was called to the fact that the officers testified concerning certain admissions and a confession of Zitek. The testimony of the officers as to statements made by Zitek to them was pure hearsay, but it was received without objection; no exception was taken, no request for an instruction made and no assignment of error has been presented on that point.

  3. Darnell v. State

    369 P.2d 470 (Okla. Crim. App. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    The cases cited by the defendant are all contrary to his contention. For example, in the case of McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191 cited by the defendant, a larceny case, this Court said: "Where the word `steal' is used it means to take and carry away the property of another with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to appropriate the same to one's own use." That is precisely, though not verbatim, what the court in this case told the jury.

  4. Kerr v. State

    276 P.2d 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 8 times

    This court has held that to support a conviction of larceny of domestic animals it is necessary for the State to prove a felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of the animal and to convert the same to the taker's own use. See McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191, Cawley v. State, Okla. Cr. 248 P.2d 273. Therefore, counsel for defendant insists that the court erred in giving the instruction that it did involving drunkenness and its effect as to intent, and in failing to give certain instructions requested by the defendant.

  5. Sherfield v. State

    252 P.2d 165 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    "Section 2888, Procedure Criminal (St. 1931) [Tit. 22 O.S. 1951 § 406[ 22-406]] provides: `When an offense involves the commission of, or an attempt to commit a private injury, and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured, or intended to be injured, is not material.' Held, under this statute the name of the owner is not material if the proof discloses the essential facts necessary to constitute the larceny charged, including the possession of the property by the alleged owner." And while the Sneed case failed to mention the Butler case, any question as to the meaning of "owner" was further clarified in the later well-considered case of McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191, 193. There it was also determined that one in possession of personal property has such title thereto as would justify a charge of larceny against another who might unlawfully steal the same. And it was further determined that when the word "steal" is used it means to take and carry away the property of another, with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to appropriate the same to one's own use.

  6. Cawley v. State

    96 Okla. Crim. 53 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 17 times

    The answer to this contention is clear, we are of the opinion the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Defendant attacks the correctness of the court's instructions. He contends that instruction No. 2 fails to distinguish the statutory crime of larceny, from the statutory crime of stealing, thereby eliminating the burden upon the state to prove felonious intent on the part of the taker of the property to deprive the owner thereof and to convert the same to his own use and benefit. He bases this contention on the authority of Sneed v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 96, 65 P.2d 1245, and Crowell v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 148, 117 P. 883, 885. This contention has been adversely resolved to the defendant's position in McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191, wherein this court said: "The general larceny statute of this State, Sec. 2253, O.S. 1931, Tit. 21 O.S.A. 1941 § 1701[ 21-1701], defines larceny as follows: `Larceny is the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof.' Sec. 2267, O.S. 1931, Tit. 21 O.S.A. 1941 § 1716[ 21-1716] deals with the larceny of domestic animals.

  7. Taylor v. State

    95 Okla. Crim. 98 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)   Cited 25 times

    In the case of McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191, complaint was made of the giving of a single instruction where larceny was in the first part thereof defined as in section 1701, supra, the general statute, but where further on the instruction was as to material allegations, similar to Instruction No. 6 given herein. And there counsel for defendant requested the court to give an instruction worded exactly as the requested instruction in the Sneed case, but the court refused to give the same.

  8. Brannon v. State

    234 P.2d 934 (Okla. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 14 times

    This court has construed the above statute in many cases, where there are varying fact situations and where is illustrated the application of the principle, and where reasons in support are set out. See Leyerle v. State, 31 Okla. Cr. 179, 237 P. 871; Dickson v. State, 28 Okla. Cr. 378, 231 P. 315; McDaniels v. State, 77 Okla. Cr. 84, 139 P.2d 191; Jackson v. State, 86 Okla. Cr. 420, 193 P.2d 895; Cassell v. State, 76 Okla. Cr. 79, 128 P.2d 1016, 1018, 134 P.2d 372; Cordonnier v. State, 86 Okla. Cr. 291, 192 P.2d 298. See also Evans v. State, 60 Ga. App. 597, 4 S.E.2d 502.