State v. Farnes - 171 Mont. 368, 558 P.2d 472 (1976)

Rule:

It is a well-established principle of law that in a criminal prosecution, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the main fact of guilt or any evidentiary fact looking thereto is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury. More specifically, this court has stated that: "the jury being the sole judges of the weight to be given to the testimony, the court should not tell them what particular weight to give to any portion of the testimony. The rule is that if substantial evidence is found to support the verdict, then it will stand.

Facts:

In February 1975, Bill Stumpf arrived at the public auction market in Montana towing a horse trailer. An unbranded sorrel mare was unloaded from the trailer, and was delivered by him to an employee of the market telling it to run the horse through loose at the sale that day. He did not claim any ownership of the animal, but consigned the mare in the name of one Ray Tanner. After the sale, on that same day, a purported bill of sale to the animal signed by one Earl West to Ray Tanner was delivered to the auction market by the defendant Evelyn Farnes. The employee receiving the bill of sale testified that the defendant introduced herself as Ray Tanner's wife, and when told that payment would be delayed until the following Monday, defendant wrote the name of Karla Reichert on the back of the bill of sale and told the employee to make payment to her named friend. The employee receiving the bill of sale from the defendant also testified over objection that approximately 30 minutes earlier, he received a phone call from a person inquiring what he needed for the horse, and the employee answered that a bill of sale would be required. The local brand inspector testified that he photographed the mare on February 8, 1975. He also testified that at the sale, he saw the defendant, in the company of Bill Stumpf, Buzz Feelay, and Karla Reichert. The local inspector/detective testified that he commenced an investigation regarding the sale of the horse, and learned that Karla Reichert was the defendant’s daughter and the girlfriend of Bill Stumpf. He further testified that he was unable to locate anyone by the name of Ray Tanner or Earl West, the persons named on the bill of sale delivered by the defendant. Weeks later, Dr. Thomas Morledge reported a sorrel mare as missing from his winter pasture, and from photographs he had taken and the photograph taken at the Auction Market, the horse was identified as the one delivered by Bill Stumpf. The district court convicted defendant the crime of theft. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that defendant was guilty of the crime of theft in this case if she was aware that the horse was stolen or if she was aware of a high probability that the horse was stolen. Thus, the court ruled that under the weakest interpretation of the facts presented by the state, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was aware of a high probability that the horse was stolen. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.