*1 5J purpose undertaking, of by denied the Board without formal hearing. each coadventurer shall stand principal, the relation of well as as Request fact, proposed for findings of agent, as to coad- each the other conclusions law and award is not equal right venturers an con- final contemplated by act of the Board law. employed carry trol the means order of Acci the Industrial purpose out the common of the adven- The appel dent denying compensation Board ture.” lants is affirmed. No costs allowed. regard In cases where there is SMITH, J., and TAYLOR, KNUD- C. dispute as to the facts this Court has McFADDEN, JJ, SON and concur. compensation cases,
said: “In workmen’s facts testimony where the witnesses, stipulation otherwise, are
conflicting, appear and where facts in the which, uncontradicted, if
record would be support appealed
sufficient order
from, appeal.” will not reversed it Younkin, Knight 612, v. 61 Idaho 105 P.2d P.2d 375 536 cases). principle (citing This 456 has been Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE of Co., Simplot R. Ohm v. restated 70 J. 318, 952. Idaho P.2d BOOTON, Earl William also William known as Booton, Defendant-Appellant. Ea rl request claim At the of the Board No. 9159. of fact proposed findings ants submitted Re and conclusions and an of law award. Supreme Court of Idaho. spondents thereto. objections submitted Oct. an order Board thereafter entered attorney. claimants’ notifying
without request Board’s
Claimants contend that the was an proposed findings and award
nouncement of and committed its decision denying with
error thereafter an award
out counsel. Claimants further notice to which petition
filed a for reconsideration *3 Benson, Atty. Gen., L.
Frank William E. Atty. Gen., Boise, Swope, Hugh Asst. C. Maguire, Atty., McDermott, Pros. Jr., P. A. Atty., Pocatello, Deputy respond- for Pros. ent. Bennett, Pocatello, ap-
Robert W.
pellant.
ticularly insufficiency, to that he establish: passed knowing- had uttered the check and ly, in- willfully feloniously; and that he recipient of the- tended to defraud the check; knowledge the that he had check He also- forged. contends was false and against law, the verdict was prejudicial inflammatory based was character, in- contained evidence as voluntarily and not in- a statement made questions propounded the- response to state. 30, involved, September dated check payable in to cash the amount was King “Jim signed
$132.00 “Holland Furnace Co.”' 29, 1961, September Friday, during On P.M., A.M., ap- 5:30 hours between employee Booton, an the Holland pellant in a in Company, had been bar Furnace cashed, in check was Pocatello where the McFADDEN, Justice. employees company fellow two Appellant by an charged Booton was by one- This was owned bar two women. passing and uttering information accepted and cashed Fields, Raymond who defraud, forged intent to instrument with question. testified Fields the check forged, under knowing it was false day had claimed was- all that Booton provisions He tried 18-3601. I.C. § bring in an amount check going appeals charge, and convicted of the to be cashed. hundred dollars one of over of conviction and judgment from the a month about had Fields known *4 trial. new motion for denying order his Fur- for the Holland that he worked and to claims have- Company. Booton Appellant court erred nace asserts that the in bar. checks cashed other conviction, previously con- judgment in entering afternoon, Booton in the to five o’clock tending insufficiency of evidence About the ques- the check par- and judgment, and support and endorsed the verdict exactly that sort. I’m he to Fields not sure Fields be cashed. deduct- how tion to phrased question.” him on the Booton a bar an amount owed ed bill, paid the to Booton. Be- and balance subsequent October, In a conversation in Friday Fields evening the closed fore bank the appellant, with Mr. Moldenhauer tes- check; “I knew the he stated examined that: tified the check. wrong something with there was why “The was conversation he wrote my extra bartenders it one of to gave ISo check, and he stated he did not bank, it to up he to and took to take write stated the check. He that John forged bank, was he that said check, Morrison wrote the and I asked n check it, brought it and couldn’t cash why him at that time night he that before also testified He back.” was he did not arrested mention John n check that stated that was cashed me, and he Morrison said—as I re- manager of King, wife of Mr. member, was he too confused on the company, the check wrote furnace night think, couldn’t that he or some- gave to him. it However, thing like that. wanted he up pick Morrison, then from the us receiving
After the check back John him, we could not locate and he didn’t to the bank, the check over Fields turned he would be.” night where same know police department. Later that appellant apprehended. Mol- was Mr. State, King, Mr. a witness for the James po- Pocatello denhauer, a detective of the manager testified that he was the had a con- department, that he lice stated Company, Holland Furnace and that early appellant with the versation question signature on check in was September Saturday, hours morning not signature; not his was that the check He testi- 30th, arrest. Boston's following it person; written an that authorized fied: signed by wife, wasn’t that signature was not that of his wife. why he was
“The -conversation stated that passed the He check. Appellant’s explanation posses- of his money than owed him a lot more King sion of that the check was the effect that, he him if wrote asked Morrison, employee, I while a fellow John got he check, and he girls stated in the discussed bar with the two —I’m just exactly sorry. can’t remember person I how was be bailed another out placed he if the Something jail, they wondering that. how were check, that he night effect did not write going out about check, something Appellant only had got but them. stated *5 56 intent, knowledge
$25.00, paid general if bill criminal and and that he his bar he and knowledge nothing go specific with”. He would have “to out not to intent and the requisite stated “So about that Morrison crime as time for commission of the John well, you me, ‘If criminal charged. general he said As told to such said— pay you knowledge, wilfulness, him what him out of and owe unlawfulness gave jury check. He the intent, check. Then the them from me the can infer said, something go out surrounding would and the ‘You have facts circumstances ” with.’ commission the crime itself. I.C. of §§
18-114, Idaho Johnson, 18-115. State 74 v. 269, “intent” as P.2d The word 261 638. proof of the Essential elements of not been mean so used has construed to instrument as forged uttering crime of merely crime, an intent to is commit a but 1. The by are: I.C. 18-3601 defined § instrument; in- perform character the 2. the forged knowingly of the intent by genuine and the Its utterance as true 75, Parish, terdicted Idaho act. State 79 v. knowledge of its accused; guilty 3. His supra. Johnson, 1082. State 310 P.2d v. character; accused’s and The spurious 4. also State See : defraud another. intent to Appellant’s the passing of act 108; P. Peo- 451, 129 Peeples, 71 Wash. v. credit receiving to Fields and his check 151, Chapman, Cal.App.2d 319 ple 156 v. money is and the the bill balance of Pounds, Cal.App.2d People v. 168 8; P.2d jury evidence from which sufficient 756, P.2d check 336 that could find in could genuine. jury The
as true proof that of specific is uncontroverted by The knowledge fer forged and from its check forged itself was nature of the check to Fields. presented the check utterance and the surrounding defendant circumstanc consists of 20, check Passing uttering State, es. McGhee v. 183 Tenn. 189 Hobl, payment. 826, State v. for it S.W.2d 164 A.L.R. knowl presenting 617. Such may proven edge by cir 261, 194 either direct or allegation 108 Kan. P. 921. The evidence, Peeples, “knowingly, willfully, cumstantial 71 the defendant State 451, intentionally showing unlawfully, feloniously, Wash. 129 108. Evidence P. nature etc., pass ques forged instrument did utter” check possession appel an its utterance raises issue fact resolution tion sufficient an inference allegation “knowingly” lant is warrant jury; specific knowledge, in absence “intentionally” of this has reference of a satisfactory explanation Appellant of its ac assigns next error if quisition 617, possession. 164 A.L.R. trial court in to declare a mistrial failing 683; 622, Forgery 62. when Officer § Moldenhauer introduced evi Am.Jur. appellant attempted While explanation an dence of other past crimes and the crim possession instrument, inal appellant. record of the This conten effect *6 gave Morrison one him the tion is based on following portion the check, yet, arrested, when first the defend testimony the adduced direct examina on this, ques ant never mentioned and the tion witness; of this tion of explana reasonableness of such “Q. a minute. was Where the Just jury. was an for the There tion issue conversation, present? and who was ample jury from was evidence which the appellant the against could find on the rea (Witness “A. Moldenhauer) ’Still explanation. of this sonableness police at Myself the station. and Mr. present. He told me that if pertaining As to the evidence to we would let him get he go would the the specific intent defendant had the to money from his father back East recipient the check, defraud the this was pay off; the check that all we were question jury. for the a of fact From the put trying to do was him back the passing the check it uttering fact penitentiary. had no— We self, receipt proceeds and from the of the check, jury find properly the could Armstrong attorney). (defense “Mr. specific intent to “An defraud. intent object your to that I honor. by injure proven to or not be defraud need “The Court. grounds, On what Mr. positive may in be evidence. It and direct Armstrong ? be jury from the evidence ferred Ala.App. State, fore them.” McGee Armstrong. “Mr. No reference has 221, 101 So. past been made to Mr. Booton’s penitentiary he has whether been in the repeated, has so oft been As or not. judges of jury exclusive are the facts, credibility of the witnesses. and the already “The The answer Court. is competent and When substantial there is in the record. body, can court evidence before Armstrong. “Mr. merit There is no not set aside a verdict. directed appellant’s assignment to of error Armstrong. to strike “Mr. move I insufficiency of the evidence. it. trial, The answer will Later took during “The Court. stand, objection your sustained.” examination of own stricken previous criminal counsel his whole record was made reference any time second jury. was to In view of the wit- record, same appellant’s past to of the the testi- striking actions Court stated, he conversation ness relating objected to, the court’s instruction to mony appellant. had and the balance the record of jury “Well, trial, less refusing more or the court did not err in Mr. Booton was was hysterical' way hysterical, appellant’s he motion trial or grant new —in pound declaring mistrial. he would crying, and then do desk, said, you want he ‘All Judgment affirmed. conver- sorry. is—’ I’m This was the says, me, telling he sation was J., SMITH, J., KNUDSON, C. He put back.’ ‘You me just want MARTIN, Judge, District concur. You I says, care do. ‘You don’t what me,’ says.” anything care about don’t McQUADE, (dissenting). Justice made or motion to strike objection No Underlying principles our of criminal law relating by appellant this time. Then at *7 premise a defendant shall is basic that
to a later conversation with Prejudice impartial a fair trial. have that: the witness stated expunged prohibited are be bias to re- then was his “The conversation concept accomplish that to the fundamental charge, cooperate to on the luctance upon evi- defendant not convicted shall be that and at that time we mentioned disprove prove or dence which does not might prosecute persistent vio- on a which essential elements of the crime with against lator him.” say charged. elementary that is It is jury may prejudiced by be a defendant’s objection sustained court An To background this of former convictions. court and the answer stricken. trial safeguard- many end there have been rules jury them: in his instructions to the advised prevent ing trial which of an accused are as a “You further instructed ex- of convictions introduction former you your must not in matter law cepting under certain circumstances. any consider deliberations in case three police In this trial officer in evidence ordered stricken from the separate to the defend- statements referred record the Court.” 375 P.2d utterances criminal record. These (cid:127)ant’s guise a conver- made under were Plaintiff-Appellant, LEHMAN, R. Herbert defendant and with the had been had sation They go do not portions thereof. were BAIR, Station, LaMont Bair’s Service d/b/a charge against the defendant proof Defendant-Respondent. objected properly strick- and where were No. 9096. by the court. en Supreme Court Idaho. is said in 22A Criminal Law It § C.J.S. Oct. p. 734(2), 1082: “* [*] or where he follows an admission certain with
denial
facts, reply and the the statement there- may received and considered
against him to extent that he ad- charge,
mits the truth of the the admis- evidence, being
sion statement being
not direct' evidence but admis- only reply.” in connection
sible 22A 735, p.
In Criminal Law § C.J.S.
1085, it is said:
“ * * * per- should nor the state be portions introduce
mitted to do which not relate to
conversation charged.”
offense denying permit- a new trial the court
In prejudicial statements to influence
ted inflammatory prejttdicial Being
jury. nature it was reversible error to con- *8 with the trial of the case.
tinue I from
To this extent dissent the ma- opinion.
jority