Cannon v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1906 |
| Citation | 125 Ga. 785,54 S.E. 692 |
| Parties | CANNON. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
In an indictment for larceny from the house, a description of the thing stolen as "twenty-seven hundred dollars in money, of the value of twenty-seven hundred dollars, " is sufficiently full and accurate to withstand a special demurrer.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Larceny, § 72.]
Where an indictment contains two counts charging the defendant with the crimes both of burglary and of larceny from the house, a verdict finding him guilty of larceny from the house cannot be deemed unwarranted by the evidence on the ground that the evidence also shows him to be guilty of the other offense of burglary.
The evidence warranted the verdict, and no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment of the trial court.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Habersham County; J. J. Kimsey, Judge.
Tol Cannon was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. C. Edwards, J. S. Oakes, and H. H. Dean, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Charters, Sol. Gen., for the State.
ATKINSON. J. 1. On the trial of the case in the court below the defendant demurred to the indictment upon the grounds: (a) That "the description of the money alleged to have been stolen was Insufficient in law, and does not describe the money soas to put the defendant on notice of what kind or character of money the state expects to prove to have been taken or stolen by the defendant"; (b) because "the description, twenty-seven hundred dollars in money, is entirely too vague and uncertain to put the defendant upon any notice whatever as to the kind or character of the money lost and alleged to have been stolen, and does not put the defendant upon notice of the facts charged against him with sufficient certainty." The indictment charged that the money alleged to have been stolen was the property of Ellen S. Goss, and was taken from "the smokehouse of said Ellen S. Goss in the county aforesaid." The indictment was not deficient for want of more specific description of the money alleged to have been stolen. Hillsman v. State, 68 Ga. 836. Nor was the indictment deficient in respect to the other descriptive averments. The allegations were sufficient to put the defendant clearly and fully upon notice of what he was called upon to defend. In Melvin v. State, 120 Ga. 490, 48 S. E. 198, it is held that in an indictment for simple larceny a description of the thing stolen is not sufficient which merely describes the article as "one shovel, of the value of one dollar." But in that case the court draws a distinction between cases where there are no attendant collateral circumstances tending to describe the property alleged to have been stolen, and other cases where there are such attendant circumstances. In the latter class of cases, the description of the article stolen is considered in connection with the other circumstances which go to individualize the larceny, and in such case it is called "compound larceny." In the opinion in Melvin v. State, supra, it is said, that "in indictments for compound larceny the allegations in reference to the aggravated fact serve to individualize the transaction, and a more general description of the property is permissible in such cases than would be permitted in indictments for simple larceny." Prom that view of the case, the cases of Sanders v. State, 86 Ga. 717, 12 S. E. 1058, and Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, 13 S. E. 829, control the case at bar and require that the judgment of the court below in overruling the demurrer be affirmed. The larceny charged in the case at bar is one of a compound nature. It is alleged in the first place that the thing stolen was money and was the property of Ellen S. Goss, and that it was stolen in the county of Habersham. In addition to these averments, it is further alleged that it was stolen from the smokehouse of the said Elen S. Goss. Under these allegations, the indictment conforms to the rulings as made in the cases above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tripp v. State
...sufficiently describes that property. Cody v. State, 100 Ga. 105, 28 S.E. 106; Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 28 S.E. 25; Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S.E. 692. The trial court did not err, for any reason assigned, in overruling the demurrers to the special Judgment affirmed. GARDNER,......
-
Glass v. State
..." and in such a case the description of the stolen property need not be as particular as in cases of simple larceny. Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S. E. 692. 2. The assignments of error in the motion for a new trial are not of such merit as to require a new trial. The evidence was confli......
-
Glass v. State
...and in such a case the description of the stolen property need not be as particular as in cases of simple larceny. Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S.E. 692. 2. assignments of error in the motion for a new trial are not of such merit as to require a new trial. The evidence was conflicting a......
-
Blackmon v. State
...120 Ga. 491, 48 S.E. 198; Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S.E. 692. (a) Larceny from the house is a larceny of a compound nature. Cannon v. State, supra. In instant case the indictment charged the defendant "with the offense of larceny from the house, for that said accused, in the county o......