State v. Roland

Citations

• 11 Idaho 490
• 83 P. 337
• 1905 Ida. LEXIS 69

Syllabus

<p>Embezzlement, What Constitutes — Remarks of Judge in Presence of Jury — Questions of Pact for the Jury to Determine — Instructions of the Court and Refusal to Give Requests of Defendant.</p> <p>1. Where it is shown that B. procured a horse from J., to be returned. the next day, and rode him to a distant point, then sold him and converted the proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of embezzlement.</p> <p>2. Where it is shown that remarks of the trial judge made in the presence of the jury in ruling on the admissibility of evidence were not prejudicial to the defendant, or did not indicate to the jury the feeling of the court as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, no error is committed.</p> <p>3. Where it is shown that the contract for possession of the alleged embezzled property is made in one county and it is disposed of in another county, and the court fully and fairly instructs the jury as to the law of the ease, leaving that question entirely to them, it becomes a question of fact solely for their determination, and this court will not disturb their verdict, unless it is shown by the reeord that their verdict is not justified or supported by the evidence.</p> <p>4. Where the court instructs fully and fairly on every issue involved in the prosecution, it is not error to refuse requests of defendant covering the same issues, but couched in different language.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.)</p>