Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1897 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Error to court of common pleas, Franklin county.
The plaintiff in error, Joseph B. Harris, was tried on an indictment based upon section 6818, Rev. St., which in one count charged the crime of robbery, and in a second count charged the crime of pocket picking, averring the property to be of the value of three dollars. The verdict found the prisoner not guilty under the first count, but ‘guilty of pocket picking, in manner and form as charged in the second count,’ but failed to find and return the value of the property taken. When asked why judgment should not be pronounced, the prisoner interposed a motion in arrest on the ground that the verdict is insufficient in law, because it does not find the accused guilty of any crime, and will not sustain any sentence. This motion was overruled, and sentence pronounced, which is the ground of error complained of. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A verdict rendered upon the trial of a valid indictment for pocket picking, which finds the defendant guilty of pocket picking in manner and form as charged in the indictment, is sufficient to sustain judgment and sentence, although such verdict does not find and return the value of the property taken.
E. W. Courtright, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph H. Dyer, Pros. Atty., for the State.
The question is, it is necessary, in the trial of an indictment for pocket picking, that the jury, upon conviction, ascertain and declare in the verdict the value of the property taken? We answer the question in the negative. The crime involves stealing, but it is not primarily an offense against property, but an offense against the person and is so classified in our statutes. The punishment is not made to depend upon the amount taken, but is confinement in the penitentiary from one to five years, irrespective of the amount. The section providing for the offense is found in chapter 3 of title 1 of the penal subdivision of the statutes. This chapter is entitled ‘Crimes against the Person,’ and includes murder, rape, robbery, and the like, while larceny is provided for in chapter 4, under the subtitle of ‘Offenses against Property,’ which embraces also arson, burglary, horse stealing, and the like. These titles are part of the statutes, and are to be considered in arriving at the intent of the legislature. Had that body intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lewis
...Alexandrian Society, 11 Ohio 1; Wilber v. Paine, 1 Ohio 251; State v. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 113; Lessee v. Corwin, 5 Ohio 410; Harris v. State, 57 Ohio St. 92; sec. 26, art. 2, Const.; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (1 ed.), 224; Sweet v. Syracuse, 129 N.Y. 316; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, ......
-
Proctor v. Ford Motor Co.
...is 'Fellow employees' Immunity from Suit.' Titles and sub-titles have been held to be part of the Ohio statutes, Harris v. State (1897), 57 Ohio St. 92, 94, 48 N.E. 284, but the use of the phrase 'fellow employee' does not provide the clarity to dispose of the issue here particularly in vie......
- State ex rel. Ellis v. Mulhern
-
State v. Butler
...included offense under an indictment for pocket-picking. The distinction is clear. As set forth in the opinion, and in Harris v. State, 57 Ohio St. 92, 94, 48 N.E. 284, pocket-picking under our statutes is an offense against the person, while larceny is an offense against property. Thus poc......