Mitchell et al. v. the Territory of Oklahoma

11 Citing cases

  1. Grissom v. State

    253 P.3d 969 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding error alone does not reverse convictions in Oklahoma, only error plus injury

    Contrary to Appellant's reasoning, our cases also show that what Appellant calls his "intent to use the vehicle temporarily" is not the same thing in law as the intent to deprive the owner of its use temporarily. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma Territory reversed a conviction on similar grounds in Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782 (1898). Defendants lived with their family on an acreage that was the subject of a boundary dispute with a neighbor.

  2. Abraham v. United States

    15 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1926)   Cited 8 times
    In Abraham v. United States, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 911, this court had under consideration the questioned sufficiency of the evidence there presented to show that an automobile transported in interstate commerce had been stolen within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408.

    To constitute larceny under this statute there must be an animus furandi at the time of the taking, an intent to deprive the owner, permanently of his property. Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 533, 54 P. 782; Devore v. Territory, 2 Okla. 562, 563, 37 P. 1092; Ex parte Millsap, 29 Okla. 472, 474, 118 P. 135; Smith v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 544, 548, 139 P. 709. See 2 Bishop, Cr. Law, §§ 758, 842; 2 Bishop, Cr. Proc. § 698a.

  3. Smith v. Territory of Oklahoma

    79 P. 214 (Okla. 1904)   Cited 5 times

    The Territory objected to each of these questions, which objections were sustained by the court and the defendants excepted and assign them as error. It is contended by the plaintiffs in error that this evidence was incompetent. In support of this contention they cite the case of Mitchell v. The Territory, 7 Okla. 527. This case has no application to the case under consideration. In the Mitchell case the defendants were at the time of the arrest in possession of the property and the court held that any explanation given by them at the time when first found in possession of the property, was admissible as explanatory of any criminating circumstance in reference to the possession thereof, and was a part of the res gestae.

  4. Hughes v. Territory of Oklahoma

    8 Okla. 28 (Okla. 1899)   Cited 26 times

    That is not the law. Defendant may have taken the animal to play a joke on the owner, or he may have taken it for the purpose of only temporarily depriving the owner of it, as in the case of Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782. Such taking is not stealing. The intent which must be present in all such cases would be lacking.

  5. Saferite v. State

    93 P.2d 762 (Okla. Crim. App. 1939)   Cited 8 times

    Upon a charge of larceny of an automobile, the intent must be felonious, and must be to deprive the owner not temporarily, but permanently, of the property. In Mitchell et al. v. Territory of Oklahoma, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782, the court in the fourth paragraph of the syllabus said in part: Any taking of personal property with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner thereof, and then return the same, does not constitute larceny, but is a trespass. In order to constitute a felonious intent, the taking must be to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

  6. Chesser v. State

    63 Okla. Crim. 84 (Okla. Crim. App. 1937)   Cited 33 times
    In Chesser v. State, 63 Okla. Cr. 84, 73 P.2d 191, 192, this court held that the statement of the county attorney in his argument to the jury, "Why couldn't they contradict the state's testimony, but not one place do they do that," and "I say again there is no evidence offered to contradict the state's evidence in this case," was not a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.

    "In a prosecution for larceny, what the defendant said in explanation of his possession of a part of the stolen goods, immediately upon its discovery with him, is a part of the res gestæ, and as such admissible in evidence in his favor as well as adversely to him." To the same effect is the holding in the following cases: Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782; Smith v. Territory, 14 Okla. 518, 79 P. 214, 218. What the defendant said at the time when found in possession of the stolen livestock, relating to and explanatory of his possession, was admissible in evidence in his favor as well as adversely to him.

  7. Hughes v. State

    65 P.2d 544 (Okla. Crim. App. 1937)   Cited 8 times

    Upon a charge of larceny of an automobile, the intent must be felonious and must be to deprive the owner, not temporarily but permanently of the property, and need not be lucri causa. In Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782, 784, this court stated: "A taking of personal property with the intent to deprive the owner temporarily of his property, and return the same to him, is not larceny, but is trespass; is not felony, but a misdemeanor.

  8. Parker v. State

    300 P. 324 (Okla. Crim. App. 1931)

    Under the testimony introduced by the defendant, he had no connection with the taking, and therefore they could not have been accomplices. Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782; Shires v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 97, 99 P. 1100; McSpadden v. Territory, 7 Okla. Cr. 234, 122 P. 1105. There is therefore no merit in the contention of defendant that the evidence is insufficient because based on the testimony of accomplices whose testimony was conflicting and uncorroborated.

  9. Huffman v. State

    217 P. 1070 (Okla. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 16 times

    1 Whart. Cr. Law, pars. 51, 53; 1 McClain Cr. Law, par. 161; Crowell v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 148, 117 P. 883; McSpadden v. Territory, 7 Okla. Cr. 228, 122 P. 1105. In Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782, the court said: "The intent must be felonious, and must be to deprive the owner, not temporarily, but permanently, of the property, and need not be lucri causa.

  10. Cheeves v. State

    18 Okla. Crim. 480 (Okla. Crim. App. 1920)   Cited 28 times
    In Cheeves v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 480, 196 P. 726, and in Gourley v. State, 49 Okla. Cr. 24, 292 P. 873, this character of evidence was held to be properly admitted.

    " At the common law, when stolen goods were discovered in possession of a party recently after being stolen, what he said in explanation of his possession of the property immediately upon its discovery with him and before he had time to concoct a story is a part of the res gestae, and admissible as such. 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. par. 746; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) par. 761; Mitchell v. Territory, 7 Okla. 527, 54 P. 782; Smith v. Territory, 14 Okla. 518, 79 P. 214. What the defendant said in this case, immediately upon the discovery of a part of the stolen goods at his place, was admissible in evidence in his favor, as well as adversely to him.