Case ID: mont_22/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE, Respondent, v. KINDER et al., Appellants.
    [No. 1,359.]
    [Submitted May 1, 1899.
    Decided May 8, 1899.]
    
      Becei/ovng Stolen Goods — Evidence of Larceny — Conviction.
    Evidence showing that defendant was guilty of the crime of larceny does not justify his conviction of the crime of receiving stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; William Clancy, Judge.
    
    J. W. Kinder, charged under the name of William Kinder, and Hannah Kinder were convicted of receiving stolen goods, and appeal.
    Reversed.
    
      Campbell <& Parr, for Appellants.
    
      C. B. Nolan, Attorney General, for the State:
   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.