Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Dix

Court of Appeals of Idaho

February 27, 2019

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM TIMOTHY DIX, aka JAMAAL AL-DIN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge.

         Order withholding judgment and order of probation for grand theft and burglary, affirmed

          Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Jenny C. Swinford argued.

          Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. John C. McKinney argued.

          LORELLO, JUDGE

         William Timothy Dix, aka Jamaal Al-Din, appeals from his order withholding judgment and order of probation for grand theft and burglary. Dix argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of grand theft or burglary. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

         I.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Dix was charged with grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(b) and 18-2409, and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. At trial, the State's theory was that Dix committed theft when he obtained merchandise from a supply store on open lines of credit with no intent to pay for the merchandise and that Dix committed burglary when he took that merchandise to a pawn shop where he received loans for the merchandise based on false representations regarding ownership of the merchandise. The State presented three witnesses: an employee from the supply store, a pawn shop employee, and the investigating officer. The supply store employee testified that Dix opened lines of credit for two businesses and used those lines of credit to obtain merchandise from the supply store. The merchandise Dix received included several tool sets. Dix never made any payments on the accounts he opened with the supply store.

         The pawn shop employee testified that the pawn shop gave Dix loans for new tool sets on four separate occasions. Documentary evidence reflected those loans were made on the same days Dix received tool sets from the supply store. The employee also testified that the pawn slips associated with the loans, which Dix signed, included a representation that he owned the property. After several similar transactions with Dix, the pawn shop employee became suspicious, contacted law enforcement, and provided the investigating officer with items related to Dix's transactions at the pawn shop.

         The investigating officer testified that he first contacted Dix after he used a business license to acquire thirteen cell phones and tablets, which Dix later pawned. The officer advised Dix that his conduct did not appear to be legitimate business and that it could result in criminal charges, although no charges were filed in relation to the cell phones and tablets. When the officer was later contacted regarding Dix pawning new tool sets, the officer initiated the investigation which resulted in the criminal charges in this case.

         Dix pled not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. After the State rested its case-in-chief, Dix moved for a judgment of acquittal on both offenses arguing that, under State v. Bennett, 150 Idaho 278, 246 P.3d 387 (2010), he became the owner of the merchandise once he obtained possession of the merchandise from the supply store and that, as the owner, he could lawfully pawn it. The district court denied the motion and the jury subsequently found Dix guilty of grand theft and burglary.

         After trial, Dix renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal for the burglary charge only. The district court denied the motion. The district court subsequently entered an order withholding ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.