Bowen v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1895 |
| Citation | 106 Ala. 178,17 So. 335 |
| Parties | BOWEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county; John R. Tyson, Judge.
Dave Bowen was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
The appellant was tried upon the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Dave Bowen, with intent to steal, broke into and entered the dwelling house of Israel Robertson, and did feloniously take and carry away from the dwelling house of Israel Robertson four five-dollar bills, commonly known and called 'greenbacks,' of the paper currency of the United States, of the value of twenty dollars, and one two-dollar bill, commonly known and called 'greenbacks,' of the paper currency of the United States, of the value of two dollars, and eight silver dollars, of the value of eight dollars, of the silver currency of the United States, and a trunk of the value of one dollar, all being of the aggregate value of thirty-one dollars, against the peace," etc. The defendant demurred to the indictment as to grand larceny, upon the ground that "the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen was not laid in said indictment." This demurrer was overruled, and upon the trial the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of grand larceny, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
W. C Mulkey, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It was doubtless the purpose of the pleader to charge in the single count, of which the indictment consists, the combined offenses of burglary and grand larceny. But the count is wanting in an averment of the ownership of the goods alleged to have been stolen, and without such averment is wanting in an essential constituent of an indictment for larceny. When the criminating element of the crime of burglary is the intent to steal, if there is not only the criminal breaking and entry, but a consummation of the evil intent, the felonious taking of the goods of another, the burglary and larceny are so clearly connected and so combined that the two may be charged in a single count of the indictment. Gordon v. State, 71 Ala. 315. The count must of necessity contain the averment of every fact necessary in a separate count for each offense; otherwise it cannot be construed as charging the combined offense, but the offense only of which the essential constituents are averred. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wildman v. State
...a bar to the prosecution for the other. To support this, a reliance is had upon the cases of Gordon v. State, 71 Ala. 315, Bowen v. State, 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335, and Smith v. State, 256 Ala. 444, 55 So.2d To find that which the court had to decide in the Gordon case, we examined the orig......
-
Goolsby v. State
...burglary. Even if this were so, standing alone it would not necessarily acquit him of larceny charged in a separate count. Bowen v. State, 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335. Wildman v. State, 42 Ala.App. 357, 165 So.2d 396, is concerned with punishment under Code 1940, T. 15, § When a defendant appe......
-
Brown v. State
...may be punished under separate indictments for two offences, or one, at the election of the power prosecuting him.' See Bowen v. State, 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335; v. Snyder, 74 Cal.App. 138, 239 P. 705; Ex Parte Hill, 101 Colo. 243, 72 P.2d 471; Ex parte Gano, 90 Kan. 134, 132 P. 999; State ......
-
Estevez v. State
...may be punished under separate indictments for two offences, or one, at the election of the power prosecuting him.' 'See Bowen v. State, 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335; People v. Snyder, 74 Cal.App. 138, 239 P. 706; Ex parte Hill, 101 Colo. 243, 72 P.2d 471; Ex parte Gano, 90 Kan. 134, 132 P. 999......