Baker v. State , 25226.

• Citation: 163 N.E. 268,200 Ind. 336
• Decision Date: 24 October 1928
• Docket Number: No. 25226.,25226.
• Parties: BAKER v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

200 Ind. 336

163 N.E. 268

BAKER

v.STATE.

No. 25226.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 24, 1928.

Appeal from Noble Circuit Court; Arthur F. Biggs, Judge.

Les Baker was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Chester L. Teeter, and Eggeman, Reed & Cleland, all of Ft. Wayne, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., Bernard A. Keltner, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Albert M. Campbell, of South Bend, for the State.

MARTIN, J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit under section 378, c. 61, Acts 1907 (section 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.

[1] 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. Section 800, Ewbank's Indiana Crim. Law.

“Without proof of the value of stolen property, there can be no conviction for larceny *** in the absence of any evidence upon the subject of such value, the court or jury could not indulge in presumptions to supply the omission. The goods need not be proved to be of the value charged in the indictment, but it must be shown that they are of some value.” Burrows v. State (1894) 137 Ind. 474, 37 N. E. 271, 45 Am. St. Rep. 210.

In some jurisdictions the reasonable rule of law prevails that the fact of value need not be established by separate or specific proof, but that the jury may infer value where the nature of the property is such as to justify such an inference, State v. Nelson (1917) 91 Vt. 168, 99 A. 881;State v. Gerrish (1885) 78 Me. 20, 2 A. 129; Houston v. State (1852) 13 Ark. 66; but such rule has never been adopted in Indiana, and a majority of this court is unwilling to adopt it now.

[2][3][4] To sustain a charge of larceny, the evidence must show that the thing alleged to have been stolen was the property of the person named as its owner...