Opinion ID: 2112402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: counts of misuse or alteration of brand

Text: I simply cannot agree with the majority's statement that violation of the brand registration and use statutes is not a theft. That is not, in my opinion, necessarily true. The statute, SDCL 40-19-25, reads as follows: Any person who, with intent to defraud, brands or marks any cattle, horse, sheep, buffalo or mule, not his own; intentionally brands over a previous brand or in any manner alters, defaces or obliterates a previous brand; or cuts out or obliterates a previous brand on any cattle, horse, sheep, buffalo or mule is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Theft is defined as follows in SDCL 22-30A-1: Any person who takes, or exercises control over, property of another with intent to deprive him of it, is guilty of theft. While SDCL 40-19-25 does not specifically categorize the offense as theft, the acts contra to such statute would in many cases amount to theft as defined in SDCL 22-30A-1. A person who takes and re-brands another's steer, so that it appears to be his own, clearly could violate the theft statute. Does not a cowboy who sneaks into his neighbor's pasture and re-brands that neighbor's cattle with his own brand, in reality exercise control with intent to deprive over those cattle (especially knowing the customary ranching practices in this state of returning branded cattle, irrespective of their location, to the owner of the brand)? Any experienced cattleman would surely recognize that in many instances, including the case at bar, re-branding or brand altering constitutes a theft. Therefore, these counts must be reversed and remanded for retrial with the appropriate instructions, as in the theft cases above.