Opinion ID: 1181825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C. sec. 18-115:

Text: Manifestation of intent.  The intent or intention is manifested by the circumstances connected with the offense, and the sound mind and discretion of the accused. All persons are of sound mind who are neither idiots or lunatics, nor affected with insanity. Having in mind the various statutes of the State of Idaho pertaining to the offense under consideration and the statutes pertaining to proof of intent and those capable of committing crimes, it becomes clear that burglary in the State of Idaho is a crime malum in se, as differentiated from a crime malum prohibitum. In State v. Keller, 8 Idaho 699, 70 P. 1051, 1054, this court, in quoting with approval from Gardner v. People, 62 N.Y. 299, said:    `The rule on the subject appears to be that in acts mala in se the intent governs, but in acts mala prohibita the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?   ' The trial court should have given an instruction in accordance with I.C. sec. 18-201, and it was reversible error to fail to do so. The sixth specification of error is that the court erred in denying defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. This motion is based upon the correctness of the preliminary examination, the order of trial, and the two days within which to prepare for trial after the plea of the defendant. These matters, having been fully discussed herein, will not be further considered. The final specification of error, No. 7, is that the trial court erred in continually and without limit allowing the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine the defendant on matters entirely outside the scope of the direct examination and in overruling the objections of the defendant in this regard. After a close perusal of the transcript of the cross-examination of the defendant, it appears that the court committed error in permitting the prosecuting attorney to examine the defendant about being in jail on prior occasions, for offenses which were apparently misdemeanors. It is obvious from the record that the purpose of the prosecuting attorney was to impeach the defendant. It is reversible error to attempt to impeach the defendant by requiring him to testify about prior convictions of misdemeanors. State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202, 239 P.2d 258; State v. Alvord, 46 Idaho 765, 271 P. 322. Judgment of conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial. PORTER, TAYLOR, and SMITH, JJ., and DUNLAP, District Judge, concur. KEETON, C. J., disqualified.