Court Opinion

ID: 9760252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:44:44.988318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.799888
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
There are enough facts and circumstances set out in the majority opinion to show that appellant knew his wife stole the ring to disprove the statement in.the confession.
Appellant took the ring to the pawn shop and left it the day it was stolen. When confronted about the stolen ring, he brought another ring to the victim claiming that it was the ring that belonged to the victim — when it was in truth not that ring. He was still trying to conceal the stolen ring that he could have redeemed at the pawn shop.
The majority overlooks the several different ways that theft may be committed. It was not necessary that the appellant knew that his wife had planned to steal the ring. Trying to conceal the ring after learning that it was stolen was sufficient proof to support the conviction.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Before the court en banc.