AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of larceny involving property valued at $250 or less. The case centered around the Defendant's actions of pawning items, which he claimed were permitted by family practice, specifically by the victim, his nephew. The State argued that the Defendant sold the items at a flea market, intending to permanently deprive the owner of them.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by allowing the State to amend the indictment dates and by excluding his sister's testimony, which would have supported his claim that there was a family practice allowing him to pawn items. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his larceny conviction.
• Appellee: The State contended that the excluded testimony was cumulative and that it had presented evidence of the Defendant selling the tools at a flea market, thus supporting the larceny charge. The State also argued that the amendment to the indictment dates was permissible.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in permitting the State to amend the indictment to conform to the evidence.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding the testimony of the Defendant's sister regarding a family practice of pawning items.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for larceny.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for larceny.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the Court found the following:
  The amendment of the indictment dates did not prejudice the Defendant's case, and the arguments against it were not persuasive.
  The exclusion of the sister's testimony was within the district court's discretion, as it was deemed cumulative and the jury had sufficient evidence to determine the Defendant's intent to permanently deprive the owner of the items.
  The evidence presented, including the testimony about the Defendant's past practices and the sale of items at a flea market, was sufficient to support the conviction for larceny.