Adams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 19 March 1873 |
| Citation | 64 Va. 949 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. THE COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. In an indictment for stealing bank notes, it is sufficient to state that the notes were for a certain sum of money, without stating their value, under the act, Code of 1860, ch. 194, § 15-16.
2. In such a case, since the statute, the value of the bank notes is not traversable.
The case is fully stated by Judge Christian, in his opinion.
Grattan, for the appellant.
The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
The record in this case presents a single question for the consideration of this court. That question is raised, 1st, by a motion to quash the indictment; and 2d, by a motion in arrest of judgment.
The indictment is in the following form:
The jurors of the Commonwealth of Virginia in and for the body of the county of Pittsylvania, and now attending said court upon their oath present, that Robert Adams, on the 2d day of September 1872, in the said county, divers, to wit: fourteen bank notes for the payment of divers sums of money, in the whole amounting to the sum of seventy dollars, the property and bank notes of Philip Coleman, then and there being, the said sum of seventy dollars secured and payable by and upon the said bank notes, being then and there due and unsatisfied to the said Philip Coleman, and seventeen pieces of silver coin current in this commonwealth, and called half dollars, of the value of fifty cents each; and twenty-three pieces of silver coin current in this commonwealth, called quarter dollars, of the value of twenty-five cents each; each of the moneys, property, and coin of the said Philip Coleman then and there being, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away; against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth.
Upon his arraignment, to answer this indictment, the defendant moved to quash the same; which being overruled, he pleaded " not guilty." The jury found the prisoner guilty of grand larceny, as charged in the indictment, and ascertained his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, to be five years.
The question raised by the motion to quash, and the motion in arrest of judgment, is, whether the indictment is defective in failing to set forth the value of the bank notes charged to have been stolen by the defendant.
At common law, no rule of criminal pleadings was better established than that which required that in indictments for larceny the value of the property, should be stated. The reason of the rule was to distinguish between grand and petit larceny. It is also true that this rule, applied to every species of property; to bank notes and other money, as well as to other property. And before a party could be convicted of grand larceny, it was necessary to charge and prove the value of the things stolen to be at least of that amount which the law makes grand larceny. Except where modified by statute, these well settled rules still apply to all prosecutions for larceny. But it is not to be denied, that it is competent for the legislature to modify these rules, and to declare what shall constitute grand larceny, (as it has done in this and other States,) without respect to the value of the thing stolen; and what shall be deemed the value of certain specified property, irrespective of its real value.
Before the passage of the act of assembly, incorporated in the Code ch. 194, §15 and 16, it was certainly necessary to state in an indictment for the larceny of bank notes; the value of the notes, and the offence would be grand or petit larceny, according to the value charged and proved. But the question we have to consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial