Barnes v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1894 |
| Parties | BARNES v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an indictment or information for larceny, the property alleged to have been stolen should be described with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine that such property is the subject of larceny, to advise the accused with reasonable certainty of the property meant, and enable him to make the needful preparations to meet such charge at the trial.
2. An indictment charging the accused with stealing “three hogs about eleven months old, weighing about 175 pounds each, each of the value of $12,” is sufficiently definite.
3. The term “steal,” as used in the Criminal Code, includes all of the elements of larceny at common law, and it is not error to instruct that the jury may convict on finding the accused guilty of stealing the property described.
4. But, where the court undertakes to define larceny as at common law, such definition is faulty if it omits any essential element of said crime.
5. An instruction which authorizes a conviction, provided the jury shall find beyond a reasonable doubt--First, that the accused took and carried away the property described, intending to deprive the owner thereof, and to convert the same to his own use; second, that he intended to deprive the owner permanently of his property,--is erroneous for the reason that it omits the element of felonious intent.
Error to district court, Burt county; E. R. Duffie, Judge.
Samuel Barnes was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.Jesse T. Davis and S. H. Cochran, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a petition in error from the district court of Burt county, and brings up for review the judgment whereby the plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary. The first error assigned relates to the sufficiency of the description of a portion of the property alleged to have been stolen, viz. “three hogs about eleven months old, weighing about 175 pounds each, each of the value of $12.” The ground of the objection to foregoing descriptionis that it does not apprise the accused of the specific offense charged, or enable him to successfully plead this judgment in a second prosecution on the same charge. It is true that, in an indictment for larceny, the property alleged to have been stolen should be described with reasonable certainty; and, where the description is so vague or uncertain as not to advise the accused of the particular kind or character of property stolen, the indictment will be held insufficient. For instance, in State v. Morey, 2 Wis. 362, a charge of stealing “one hundred pounds of meat,” without any designation of the kind or quality of meat, was held bad for uncertainty; and in State v. Patrick, 79 N. C. 655, the designation of the stolen animal as a “yearling” was held insufficient. The sound rule is believed to be that the court must be able to determine from the indictment that the thing alleged to have been stolen is the subject of larceny, that the accused be advised with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hauck
...consistently held that the term 'steal' as used in the criminal code includes all the elements of larceny at common law. Barnes v. State, 40 Neb. 545, 59 N.W. 125. The necessary elements of larceny which are critical here require that the property must be taken and carried away with the int......
-
Higbee v. State
...State, 61 Neb. 584, 85 N.W. 843; Bergeron v. State, 53 Neb. 752, 74 N.W. 253; McAleer v. State, 46 Neb. 116, 64 N.W. 358; Barnes v. State, 40 Neb. 545, 59 N.W. 125. instruction condemned in Dobson v. State, supra, is similar to the one in the case at bar. It purported to define larceny, but......
-
State v. Banoch
...feloniously take and carry away the goods and chattels of another with intent to keep wrongfully. It is the act of larceny. Barnes v. State, 40 Neb. 545 (59 N.W. 125); State v. Tough, 12 N.D. 425 (96 N.W. Satterfield v. Commonwealth, 105 Va. 867 (52 S.E. 979). It is unquestioned law that a ......
-
Sharp v. State
...the value of ten dollars.” The description of the property, as above quoted, is sufficient, as will appear from the case of Barnes v. State, 40 Neb. 545, 59 N. W. 125, and the authorities therein cited. A plea in abatement was entered, setting up his arrest and trial upon the charge of burg......