Opinion ID: 880254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was sufficient proof of ownership of the property presented?

Text: Larson contends that ownership was not sufficiently proven because of the sloppiness of the State's proof on whether the stolen items belonged to Mike Luinstra, Sam Luinstra (Mike's father), or the corporation, Sam Luinstra & Sons, Inc. The State argues that proof of possession was sufficient. In Montana, proof of possession suffices to prove ownership for purposes of theft. [Citations omitted.] This is true whether an individual or a corporation is the owner of the property. State v. Johnson (1982), 199 Mont. 211, 217, 646 P.2d 507, 511. We hold that sufficient proof of ownership of the stolen property was made in the testimony of Sam and Mike Luinstra that the stolen property was possessed by them at their farm.