Court Opinion

ID: 9767972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:37:13.09164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.222849
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority reverses this conviction for inadequate proof of custody even though the witness J. M. Ellis testified without objection that he had control of the trailer in question. When he testified that he had control that was sufficient to show ownership.
The majority holds that the cross-examination destroyed his testimony on direct examination because he had no personal knowledge or information concerning the trailer except from the records of his employer.
This new rule established by the majority now requires personal knowledge by a witness of all the items in his place of business before he can testify he had custody of them.
It would not be logical or possible for the person in custody of thousands of items of merchandise to have personal knowledge of each item. For example, a wholesale distributor of appliances could have a large warehouse covering several acres of land and no one connected with the business would have personal knowledge of the items. Only the records and serial numbers could be used to establish ownership.
A truck driver who connects his tractor to a trailer for a cross-country trip would, probably in most instances, have little or no personal knowledge of the contents of the trailer.
The new rule adopted by the majority would make it impossible in many cases to successfully prosecute for thefts, especially from large business concerns.
Mark me dissenting from such an illogical rule that has no place in business or law.