State v. Kinder

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Kinder

57 P. 94, 22 Mont. 516, 1899 Mont. LEXIS 56

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 1899

DocketNo. 1,359

StatusPublished

This text of 57 P. 94 (State v. Kinder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kinder, 57 P. 94, 22 Mont. 516, 1899 Mont. LEXIS 56 (Mo. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal by both defendants from judgment of conviction for receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen. (Penal Code, Section 899.) The Attorney General frankly confesses that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction under the information filed herein. We shall not state the testimony, but have read it, and agree that it is altogether insufficient to convict J. W. Kinder of any crime at all; and, although it goes to show that Hannah Kinder stole certain property and was guilty of the crime of larceny, in no respect did it justify her conviction of having received stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen. The distinction between larceny and receiving stolen goods is commented upon in State v. Rechnitz, 20 Mont. 488, 52 Pac. 264. A defendant cannot be charged with the one crime and convicted of the other.

Judgment reversed. Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appeal by both defendants from judgment of conviction for receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen. (Penal Code, Section 899.) The Attorney General frankly confesses that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction under the information filed herein. We shall not state the testimony, but have read it, and agree that it is altogether insufficient to convict J. W. Kinder of any crime at all; and, although it goes to show that Hannah Kinder stole certain property and was guilty of the crime of larceny, in no respect did it justify her conviction of having received stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen. The distinction between larceny and receiving stolen goods is commented upon in State v. Rechnitz, 20 Mont. 488, 52 Pac. 264. A defendant cannot be charged with the one crime and convicted of the other.

Judgment reversed. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 P. 94, 22 Mont. 516, 1899 Mont. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kinder-mont-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack