Bloch v. State

Citation68 N.E. 287,161 Ind. 276
PartiesBLOCH v. STATE.
Decision Date13 October 1903
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

161 Ind. 276
68 N.E. 287

BLOCH
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct 13, 1903.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Huntington County; Jas. C. Branyan, Judge.

Lawrence Bloch was convicted of attempted larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

[68 N.E. 288]


Jas. M. Hatfield, for appellant. C. W. Miller, Atty. Gen., and C. T. Jackman, L. G. Rothschild, C. C. Hadley, and W. C. Geake, for the State.

MONKS, C. J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit and information with entering in the daytime the dwelling house of one Albert Alstadter and attempting to commit the crime of larceny, in violation of section 2003, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (section 1930, Rev. St. 1881; section 1930, Homer's Rev. St. 1901). A trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, and, over a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest, judgment was rendered thereon.

The errors assigned call in question the action of the court in overruling the motion to quash the affidavit and information, and in overruling the motion for a new trial and the motion in arrest of judgment.

The only objections urged to the affidavit and information are (1) that there is no specific description of the property which it is charged appellant attempted to steal; and (2) it is not alleged that said property had any value. Such allegations are not necessary in a prosecution for a violation of said section 2003 (1930) supra. Com. v. McDonald, 5 Cush. 365; Reg. v. Johnson, 10 Cox, C. C. 13; Burrows v. State, 84 Ind. 529;Barnhart v. State. 154 Ind. 177, 180, 56 N. E. 212;People v. Ah Ye, 31 Cal. 451;State v. Hughes, 76 Mo. 323;State v. Utley, 82 N. C. 556;People v. Moran, 123 N. Y. 254, 25 N. E. 412, 10 L. R. A. 109, 20 Am. St. Rep. 732, and cases cited; People v. Jones, 46 Mich. 441, 9 N. W. 486; State v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; 2 Bishop's Crim. Proc. § 87; 1 Bishop's New Crim. Law, §§ 743, 744; 1 Wharton's Crim. Law (10th Ed.) §§ 186, 191. In Reg. v. Johnson, supra, Pollock, C. B., said: “Where there is only an attempt, it is not always possible to say what property the would-be thief meant to steal.” It is clear from the authorities cited that such allegations are not necessary.

During the progress of the trial, certain articles of property found on the person of appellant were exhibited to the jury by a witness on behalf of the state. This is assigned as a cause for a new trial by appellant, but, as he made no specific objection thereto, no question is presented by said assignment for our consideration. Barn v. State, 186 Ind. 165, 170, 171, 36...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ware v. State, 172A26
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 27, 1972
    ... ... This Court found these facts sufficient to sustain a finding that the defendant entered and attempted to steal, which offense also includes an intent to steal. Bloch v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 276, 68 N.E. 287 ... 'It is well established that the issue of intent is for the jury to determine. See: Kondrup v. State, supra; Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bleiweiss v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577. Further, if two ... ...
  • Davis v. State, 168
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1968
    ... ... This Court found these facts sufficient to sustain a finding that the defendant entered and attempted to steal, which offense also includes an intent to steal. Bloch v. State (1903) 161 Ind. 276, 68 N.E. 287 ...         It is well established that the issue of intent is for the jury to determine. See: Kondrup v. State, supra; Tait v. State (1963) 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bleiweiss v. State (1919) 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577. Further, ... ...
  • Bloch v. The State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1903
  • Sharp v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1903
    ...make the instructions a part of the original bill of exceptions embracing the longhand manuscript of the evidence, but it has been settled [68 N.E. 287]by repeated holdings of this court that this method is not available for making instructions given or refused by the trial court a part of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT