Haley v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1887 |
| Citation | 4 S.W. 746 |
| Parties | HALEY and another <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John McLure, for appellants. Dan W. Jones, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The indictment charged that the defendants "sundry bills of United States currency of the aggregate value of five hundred dollars," etc., "of the money and personal property of one Perry Huff, feloniously, violently, by force, and intimidation, from the person and against the will of him, the said Perry Huff, then and there feloniously and violently did steal, take, and carry away, against the peace," etc. The jury found the defendants guilty of grand larceny. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were refused; and judgment of confinement in the penitentiary was pronounced against them.
The ground of the motion in arrest of judgment is, "because the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute the crime of grand larceny." At common law one indicted for robbery could not be convicted of larceny, as appears from Rex v. Francis, 2 Strange, 1014, which, after having been twice argued in the king's bench, was finally heard before all the judges of England. In that case the defendants were indicted for robbery. The jury returned a special verdict, and the question arose thereon whether the facts found constituted robbery. Counsel for the defendants moved for a discharge of the prisoners, and the court said: "We all think this is grand larceny, and therefore cannot discharge these persons, but as we cannot give judgment for a larceny, there must be a new indictment." In the report of the same case in 2 Com. 478, it was held that the prisoners ought not to be discharged out of custody, but remanded;
Section 2288 of Mansfield's Digest declares that, "upon an indictment for an offense consisting of different degrees, the defendant may be found guilty of any degree not higher than that charged in the indictment, and may be found guilty of any offense included in that charged in the indictment."
etc.
The question, then, resolves itself to this: Whether robbery is a degree or species of larceny, or includes it. In Clary v. State, 33 Ark. 566, this court said: "Perhaps, on a trial for robbery, if the state fails to prove that the goods were taken from the person of the party charged to have been injured, by putting him in fear, or by intimidation or violence, and proves that the goods were taken from his person furtively, the accused might be convicted of larceny." And in Davis v. State, 45 Ark. 464, it was declared that one accused of murder might be convicted of an assault with intent to kill, provided the indictment contained all the substantive allegations necessary to let in proof of the inferior crime. If the allegations of violence and intimidation be stricken out of the present indictment, a charge of larceny will still be left. Now, robbery is a compound or aggravated larceny. It is a stealing from a person, with the element of assault or putting in fear superadded. Hence it is that an acquittal or conviction of either offense bars a prosecution for the other. This could only be upon the theory that larceny is included in robbery. Hence, also, under an indictment for the higher crime, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the lower if they entertain a reasonable doubt as to which of the two offenses he is guilty. 1 Bish. Crim. Law, (6th Ed.) §§ 553, 566, 791, 792, 794, 795, 1054, 1055; 2 Bish. Crim. Law, (6th Ed.) §§ 892, 1158; People v. McGowan, 17 Wend. 386; Hickey v. State, 23 Ind. 21; People v. Jones, 53 Cal. 58; State v. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; State v. Brannon, 55 Mo. 63; State v. Painter, 67 Mo. 85; State v. Keeland, 2 S. W. Rep. 442.
The parties indicted for the robbery were T. J. Haley, his wife, and son. Perry Huff, the prosecuting witness, was a merchant of Hot Springs, and a believer in spiritualism. Mrs. Haley claimed to be a medium of communication with the world of spirits, cognizant of past events that had not fallen under her own observation, and able to predict the future. Huff had been in the habit of consulting her about his business transactions, and, having recently suffered some losses by fire, was anxious to know whether he was to get his insurance in full. Having invited her victim to a sitting at 10:30 A. M., the woman stationed her husband and step-son behind a curtain in the same apartment; and, pretending to go off into a trance, she accused Huff of burning his houses to defraud the insurance companies. About this time the two men walked from behind the curtain. Huff testifies that they locked the door of the room; that the old man Haley and his son both had pistols; that they exhibited them to him, and demanded his money, and told him he must give it up; that he was in fear of his life and great bodily injury, and, under this fear, he gave the defendants $500, and made his note, payable to Mrs. Haley, for $1,500 more. The three Haleys swear that Huff confessed to Mrs. Haley, acting as a spiritual medium, the burning of his houses on two different occasions; that old man Haley and his son heard the confession; that, after the confession was made, they confronted Huff; that Huff, being aware they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
... ... said that "the charge of robbery made against the ... appellant in this case included larceny. The indictment ... alleges the value of the money taken to be $ 100, and under ... this indictment the appellant might have been convicted of ... grand larceny." The case of Haley v ... State, 49 Ark. 147, 4 S.W. 746, is to the same ... effect. The reasoning of the court in announcing this ... conclusion was that the jury must have found the appellant ... guilty of larceny to have found him guilty of robbery, but ... had further found the aggravating circumstances of ... ...