Baker v. State
Citation | 163 N.E. 268,200 Ind. 336 |
Decision Date | 24 October 1928 |
Docket Number | 25,226 |
Parties | Baker v. State of Indiana |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
1. LARCENY---Proof Necessary---Value of Stolen Property.---In a prosecution for the crime of larceny, there must be proof of the value of the property stolen, except when it consists of money, as the rule that the jury may infer the value from the nature of the property does not prevail in this state. p 337.
2. LARCENY---Proof Necessary---Ownership of Property.---To sustain a charge of larceny, the evidence must show that the property alleged to have been stolen was the property of the person named as its owner in the indictment or affidavit, the name of the owner being a necessary part of the description of such property. p. 337.
3. LARCENY---Ownership of Stolen Property---How Proved.---In a prosecution for the crime of larceny, the ownership of the stolen property need not be established by direct proof, but may be proved by circumstances and inferences. p. 337.
4. LARCENY---Ownership of Stolen Property---Proof Held Insufficient.---In a prosecution for the crime of larceny testimony that the defendant and two other persons stole some chickens from a chicken house near the home of the person named in the affidavit as the owner thereof was not sufficient to prove that they were his chickens. p. 337.
From Noble Circuit Court; Arthur F. Biggs, Judge.
Les Baker was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
Reversed.
Chester L. Teeter and Eggeman, Reed & Cleland, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, Bernard A. Keltner and Albert M. Campbell, for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit under § 378, ch. 61, Acts 1907, § 2452 Burns 1926 with the larceny of six chickens "the property of John Walter Beers . . . of the value of nine dollars," was tried by a jury which found him guilty and was fined $ 1 and costs and sentenced to imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for a period of from one to eight years.
One of the several errors assigned is that the court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial, in which he alleges that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Beers, who made the affidavit instituting the prosecution, did not testify, and the only witnesses for the state were two prisoners from the Indiana reformatory, alleged accomplices of appellant in the chicken stealing, and they did not testify as to the value, nor as to the ownership of the chickens.
In proving the crime of petit larceny, value cannot be presumed of anything but money, and when the stolen property consists of anything else, proof of its value is essential. Ewbank Indiana Crim. Law § 800. Burrows v. State (1894), 137 Ind. 474, 37 N.E. 271. In some...
To continue reading
Request your trial