People v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 15 July 1925 |
| Citation | 148 N.E. 796,241 N.Y. 81 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SNYDER. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Earl Snyder was convicted of burglary in the third degree, and he appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division (-- App. Div. --, 209 N. Y. S. 898), unanimously affirming the judgment of conviction.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
John E. Kelly, of Schenectady, for appellant.
Alberti Baker, of Schoharie, for the People.
[1] The defendant on May 26, 1923, broke into the chicken coop of one Fred Hemstreet and stole therefrom 30 chickens. He was charged with petty larceny and pleaded guilty to the charge. Sentence of 30 days in the county jail was imposed and then suspended, pending good behavior. Thereafter he was indicted for burglary in the third degree for breaking into the chicken coop with intent to steal the chickens. His conviction under this indictment has been unanimously affirmed.
The Constitution of the state by positive enactment restates the rule which from time immorial has been regarded as implicit in our conceptions of fundamental human rights that ‘no person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.’ Article 1, § 6. Not only the letter but the full spirit of the constitutional prohibition is embodied in, if not indeed extended by, our statute law in section 1938 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) which provides that--
‘An act or omission which is made criminal and punishable in different ways by different provisions of law, may be punished under any one of those provisions but not under more than one; and a conviction or acquittal under one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other provision.’
Authority may be cited for the view that at common law a conviction could not be had under an indictment upon a charge of burglary after a previous conviction for the larceny which represents the consummation of the felonious intent, which constitutes an element of the alleged burglary. People v. Smith, 57 Barb. 46, and cases there cited. If those cases are correctly decided, they establish only that at common law the offense of burglary includes as an element the offense of larceny, when committed in connection therewith, and that punishment for the burglary therefore also includes punishment for the larceny as the greater includes the less. The Legislature has now defined criminal offenses and their punishment, and the question of whether a charge of larceny is included in an indictment for burglary and whether punishment for burglary includes punishment for larceny as part of the same offense depends solely upon the legislative intent. Question may hardly be raised that there can be no double jeopardy if the Legislature has seem fit to provide that up to a particular point the acts of the defendant constitute one crime, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crampton v. 54-A Dist. Judge
...thereon sustained without exposing defendant to double jeopardy (People v. Snyder, 214 App.Div. 742, 209 N.Y.S. 898, affd. 241 N.Y. 81, 148 N.E. 796; People v. Skarczewski, 287 N.Y. 826, 41 N.E.2d 99; People v. Di Lapo, 14 N.Y.2d 170, 250 N.Y.S.2d 261, 199 N.E.2d 361).'8 We agree with the C......
-
People v. Day
...defendant, committed thereafter, constitute a second crime and that each series of acts constitut[e] a separate crime" (People v. Snyder, 241 N.Y. 81, 83-84, 148 N.E. 796). The possessory offenses and the attempted grand larceny were "successive separate acts" (People v. Tanner, 30 N.Y.2d 1......
-
Martinis v. Supreme Court
...thereon sustained without exposing defendant to double jeopardy (People v. Snyder, 214 App.Div. 742, 209 N.Y.S. 898, affd. 241 N.Y. 81, 148 N.E. 796; People v. Skarczewski, 287 N.Y. 826, 41 N.E.2d 99; People v. Di Lapo, 14 N.Y.2d 170, 250 N.Y.S.2d 261, 199 N.E.2d The Legislature was also ju......
-
State v. Cole
...N.E. 498 [1922]; Williams v. State, 205 Md. 470, 109 A.2d 89 [1954]; State v. Wiley, 173 Md. 119, 194 A. 629 [1937]; People v. Snyder, 241 N.Y. 81, 148 N.E. 796 [1925]; People v. Mignogna, 54 N.Y.Supp.2d 233 [1945]; People v. Mangano, 269 App.Div. 954, 57 N.Y.Supp.2d 891 [1945], affirmed 29......