Cool v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 03 December 1896 |
| Citation | 26 S.E. 411,94 Va. 799 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | COOL. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Burglary—Indictment—Time—When Necessary to Specify.
1. Breaking and entering a "mill house" with intent to commit larceny is not punishable, under a statute making it a crime to break and enter "any office, shop, storehouse, warehouse, or banking house, " with such intent.
2. An indictment, found in 1895, charging defendant with breaking and entering a "mill house" with intent to commit larceny, but not specifying the date of said act, is bad, since the offense was not a felony if committed subsequent to Act Feb. 12, 1894, which amended Code, §§ 3705, 3706, making it a crime to break and enter "any office, shop, storehouse, warehouse, banking house, or other house, " with intent to commit larceny, by omitting the words "or other house."
Error to circuit court, Dickenson county.
William Cool was convicted of breaking and entering a mill house with intent to commit larceny, etc., and brings error. Reversed.
Chase & Damron, for plaintiff in error.
R. Taylor Scott, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
KEITH, P. The grand jury of Dickenson county, at the July term of the county court of the year 1895, found an indictment against William Cool, that he, "on the—— day of——, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ——, in the said county, and within the jurisdiction of the said county court of the county of Dickenson, did then and there feloniously break and enter a certain mill house, the property of Noah B. Sykes, and not adjoined to or occupied with the dwelling house of the said Noah B. Sykes, with the intent to commit larceny therein, and one and one-half bushels of meal, of the value of one dollar and fifty cents, of the goods and chattels of the said Noah B. Sykes, in the said mill house then being, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of Virginia." To this indictment the prisoner pleaded not guilty, and upon that plea the jury found him guilty, and ascertained his term of imprisonment in the penitentiary at two years. Thereupon ne moved in arrest of judgment, which mo tion the county court overruled, and entered judgment upon the verdict. Cool then applied to the circuit court of Dickenson county for a writ of error, which was refused, and thereupon he presented his petition for a writ of error to this court, which was allowed.
The reason assigned for the motion in arrest of judgment is that the indictment omits to state the time when the alleged offense was committed. At common law it was necessary to set out in the indictment the date of the alleged offense, though upon the proof the prosecution was not confined to the time as stated in the indictment, except in those cases where time was a material element in the offense; but by section 3999 it is provided that the indictment shall not be quashed or deemed invalid "for omitting to state or stating improperly the time at which the offense was committed when time is not the essence of the offence." It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire whether, in this case, time was of the essence of the offense.
Sections 3705 and 3706, under which this prosecution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. Commonwealth
...must "set out ... the date of the alleged offence" and the prosecution is "confined to the time as stated." Cool v. Commonwealth, 94 Va. 799, 800–01, 26 S.E. 411, 411 (1896). Further, when time is of the essence, a warrant that does not meet these requirements is procedurally defective. See......
-
Puckett v. Commonwealth
...as a mere form, unless some special reason rendered it important, and it was ordinarily not required to be proved as alleged. Cool's Case, 94 Va. 799, 26 S. 10. 411; Ailslock's Case, 3 Grat. (44 Va.) 650. But by statute (section 4875 of the Code) it is provided that: "No indictment or other......
-
Jordan v. Town Of South Boston
...place. If it is doubtful the prosecution must fail. Compare Min-turn v. Larue. 23 How. (64 U. S.) 435, 16 L. Ed. 574; Cool v. Commonwealth, 94 Va. 799, 26 S. E. 411. A municipal corporation is a mere local agency of the state and has no powers beyond the corporate limits except such as are ......
-
Fulton v. State
...must be one subsequent to the taking effect of the statute involved. Commonwealth v. Nailor, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 271. In Cool v. Commonwealth, 94 Va. 799, 26 S. E. 411, it is held that in a case where a statute had been enacted making a misdemeanor of what had theretofore been a felony, a sub......