Crook v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1894 |
| Citation | 27 S.W. 229,59 Ark. 326 |
| Parties | CROOK v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court ROBERT J. LEA, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
F. T Vaughan for appellant.
Sec 1621, Mansf. Dig., is clearly repealed by Cr. Code. See Mansf. Dig. secs. 2108-9. The legislature undertook to cover the whole ground, and all inconsistent statutes are repealed. 10 Ark. 590; 24 id. 479; 27 id. 418; 30 id. 560; 31 id. 17; 33 id. 316; 41 id. 152; 47 id. 491; 48 id. 354; Endl. Int Stat. sec. 182, note 6 and 4, also secs. 187-196, 199, note (c) and note A and C, also secs. 200-1-2-6-8, 216, and 241, etc.; Bish. St. Cr. sec. 159; 33 Ark. 316; 57 id. 508.
James P. Clarke, Attorney General, and Charles T. Coleman for appellee.
1. There are some exceptions to the rule laid down in 10 Ark. 591. Where the legislature did not intend a repeal, it will not be so held. Smith's Com. sec. 788; 47 N.Y. 330.
2. The judicial interpretation put upon a statute. becomes part of it and should not be changed. Our court has held that the two offenses may be joined. 33 Ark. 517; 35 id. 395; 37 id. 370. Expressio unius, etc., is too general and subject to too many exceptions to govern in the construction of criminal statutes. 7 La. An. 379.
Appellant was charged with burglary and larceny in one indictment. He demurred to the indictment, because he was accused of two offenses. His demurrer was overruled, and he was tried and convicted of both charges.
The only question in the case is, can larceny, when committed jointly with burglary, be charged by different counts in the same indictment?
Section 5 of article two in chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: "For larceny committed jointly with burglary the offender shall be held to restitution, as in other cases of larceny, and the offender may be indicted for such offenses either separately or jointly in different counts of the same indictment."
Section 125 of the Code of Practice in Criminal Cases, which was enacted subsequently to the Revised Statutes, provides: "An indictment, except in cases mentioned in the next section, must charge but one offense, but, if it may have been committed in different modes, and by different means, the indictment may allege the modes and means in the alternative." And section 126, the next section, says: "The offense named in each of the subdivisions of this section may be charged in one indictment:
First. Larceny and knowingly receiving stolen property.
Second. Larceny and obtaining money or property on false pretense.
Third. Larceny and embezzlement.
Fourth. Robbery and burglary.
Fifth. Robbery and an assault with intent to rob.
Sixth. Passing, or attempting to pass, counterfeit money or bank notes, knowing them to be such, and having in possession counterfeit money or bank notes, knowing them to be such, with the intention of circulating the same."
The effect of these two sections of the Code was the repeal of section five of article two in chapter forty-four of the Revised Statutes. But, notwithstanding this repeal, section five was brought forward and made section 1351 of Gantt's Digest; and this court has held, in Dodd v. State, 33 Ark. 517, Toliver v. State, 35 Ark. 395, and Watkins v. State, 37 Ark. 370, that "burglary and grand larceny, if the one was connected with the other, might be charged in one indictment," and cited section 1351 of Gantt's Digest to sustain its decision. No mention is made in these cases of sections 125 and 126 of the Code. The court was doubtless misled by Gantt's Digest.
The cases of Dodd v. State, Tolliver v. State and Watkins v. State, so far as they are inconsistent with this opinion, are overruled.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emrich v. Little Rock Traction & Electric Co.
...92 N.Y. 239; 103 N.Y. 547; 99 N.Y. 491; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 668. The Code has abrogated certain statutes. 45 Ark. 275; 29 Ark. 471; 59 Ark. 326; 46 Ark. 438. Repeal by implication. 24 Ark. 479; 10 Ark. 147, 589; 27 Ark. 420; 32 Ark. 410; 43 Ark. 425; 45 Ark. 92; 47 Ark. 488; 51 Ark. 182......
-
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Adams
...to wills. Id. § 738. Courts will, on discovering that they have rendered an opinion in conflict with a valid statute, correct the error. 59 Ark. 326; 33 Ark. 517; 35 395; 37 Ark. 370. Alice Bard took the estate upon conditions subsequent. Tied. on Real Prop., §§ 451, 272; 1 Warv. on Ven. 45......
-
Railway Company v. Dodd
... ... An instruction that leads the jury to infer that the evidence ... tended to prove a certain state of facts is erroneous. 45 ... Ark. 256; 45 id. 492; 49 id. 147; 43 id. 289; 54 id. 336; 37 ... id. 593-8. The court has no right to tell the jury ... ...
-
Monk v. State
... ... joining of larceny with other offenses, it is not restricted ... to grand larceny but to the crime of larceny generally. Prior ... to the year 1901 there was no authority for joining burglary ... and larceny in the same indictment, and this court held that ... they could not be joined. Crook v. State, ... 59 Ark. 326, 27 S.W. 229. But the General Assembly of that ... year amended the statute so as to allow burglary and grand ... larceny to be charged in the same indictment. From an early ... day it has been held that, "upon an indictment for a ... felony, the accused may be ... ...