Brinkley v State

Brinkley v State
1927 OK CR 197
258 P. 1071
37 Okl.Cr. 362
Decided: 07/30/1927
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Larceny Evidence Sustaining Conviction for Petit Larceny. In a prosecution for petit larceny, evidence held to sustain conviction.

2. Larceny Truthfulness of Explanation of Possession of Stolen Property for Jury. The truthfulness of an explanation of possession of stolen property, although uncontradicted, must be determined by the jury.

3. Same. Whether an explanation respecting the possession of property recently stolen is reasonable or not is ordinarily a question for the jury, the same as any other question of fact.

Appeal from County Court, Beckham County; Oscar Speed, Judge.

Charley Brinkley and Reuben Brinkley were convicted of petit larceny, and they appeal. Affirmed.

D.W. Tracy, for plaintiffs in error.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Leverett Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Page 363

DOYLE, P.J. The plaintiffs in error were charged jointly with having stolen "two horse collars, a pair of bridles, and a pair of harness lines," the property of Guy Littrell. They were found guilty by a jury which failed to agree on the punishment. A motion for new trial was filed, which was overruled, and the plaintiffs in error were each sentenced to pay a fine of $25. From the judgment they appeal.

The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment of conviction.

The evidence shows that Guy Littrell was a farmer, living 5 miles north of Elk City; on the morning of the 10th day of March, 1924, he discovered that said property had been stolen from his barn and described the track of an automobile through his field and showing the car went north after leaving his place. Two days later the stolen property was found at the home of the mother of the plaintiffs in error, about 30 miles north of Elk City.

It appears that the car owned by one of the plaintiffs in error was driven by the Littrell place that night.

He further testified that Reuben Brinkley said when they found the property:

"Turn it over, I will swear in any court that it is his stuff."

It appears that the property was taken on Monday night, Reuben was arrested on Tuesday, and Charley on Wednesday, and it was Wednesday morning when the property was recovered at the home of their mother.

The proof on the part of the defense was to the effect that Oder Allen, who at the time of the trial was serving a term in the penitentiary, left the harness at the place it was found.

Page 364

Whether an explanation respecting possession of property recently stolen is reasonable or not is ordinarily a question for the jury the same as any other question of fact, and a reasonable explanation will not necessarily lead to an acquittal. The truthfulness of an explanation of possession of stolen property, although uncontradicted, must be determined by the jury. Blumhoff v. State, 29 Okla. Cr. 97, 232 P. 862.

Carefully considering the whole testimony in this case, we have no doubt of its sufficiency to justify the verdict. After a careful examination of the record, we find no prejudicial error.