State v. Libby

Citations

• 89 Wash. 27
• 153 P. 1058
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1169

Syllabus

<p>Larceny — Evidence—Sufficiency. A conviction for stealing a calf on tbe open range is sustained by 'the evidence where the defendant admitted the killing and butchering of the calf and the taking of the meat and attempted to conceal the fact, stating to the arresting officer that no one would have known about it if he had not appeared so soon, although the accused claimed that it was shot by mistake and that he intended to find and make compensation to the owner.</p> <p>Criminad Law — Venue—Evidence—Sufficiency. The venue in a prosecution for stealing a calf on the open range is sufficiently shown, although no one was asked the direct question whether the crime was committed in the county alleged, where that fact was clearly shown and there could have been no doubt in the minds of the jury.</p> <p>Larceny — Information—Variance. Upon a prosecution for stealing a calf from the open range, of unknown ownership, there is no variance as to ownership from the fact that a witness on cross-examination testified that he thought it belonged to the L.-W. Co., where he stated on redirect that he did not know who it belonged to.</p>