Holly v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 13 June 1912 |
| Parties | HOLLY . v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Larceny (§ 30*) — Indictment — Sufficiency.
Under Code 1904, § 3994, which provides that in a prosecution for larceny of United States currency it shall be sufficient if accused be proved guilty of the larceny of national bank notes or any other form of money issued by the government, though the particular species be not proved, an indictment charging larceny of three notes of United States currency of the value of $20 sufficiently charges grand larceny.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 64-75, 99; Dec. Dig. § 30.*]
2. Larceny (§ 40*) — Variance — Property Taken.
There was no material variance between an indictment charging larceny of three notes of United States currency of the value of $20and proof of the taking of one $10 bill, one $5 bill, five $1 bills, and 65 cents in fractional coin.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-126, 160; Dec. Dig. § 40.2-*]
Error to Circuit Court, Tazewell County.
Hampton Holly was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Minter & Minter, of Pocahontas, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel W. Williams, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
The accused, Hampton Holly, was found guilty of grand larceny and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
There are only two assignments of error which need be noticed. The first is to the action of the court in overruling a motion to quash the indictment for alleged insufficiency in the description of the money which is the subject of the larceny.
The indictment charges larceny from the person of the owner of three notes of United States currency of the value of $20. Va. Code 1904, § 3707.
In Leftwich's Case, 61 Va. 716, the court held an indictment for the larceny of United States currency bad, since that was a general term, and not a sufficient designation of the kind of money charged to have been stolen. In consequence of this decision the statute now incorporated in Code, § 3994, was passed.
The last paragraph of that section provides: "And in a prosecution for the larceny of United States currency * * * it shall be sufficient if the accused be proved guilty of the larceny of national bank notes or United States treasury notes, certificates for either gold or silver coin, fractional coin, currency, or any other form of money issued by the United States government, * * * although the particular species be not proved."
After this enactment, in Dull's Case, 66 Va. 965, it was held that "an indictment for the larceny of divers notes of the 'national currency of the United States' is equivalent to the phrase in the statute of 'United States currency, ' and the indictment is sufficient."
The obvious purpose of the statute is to prevent the escape from punishment of guilty parties by imposing upon the prosecution the difficult, and in most instances impossible, task of describing with precision the particular species of stolen money. The present indictment is plainly within the terms of the statute, and is sufficient.
The last assignment of error is to the refusal of the court to grant the accused a new trial because of supposed material variance between the allegations of the indictment and the facts proved.
As observed, the offense charged is larceny from the person of the owner of three notes of United States currency of the value of $20. That allegation is the equivalent of the charge of larceny of three notes, one for $10 and two for $5 each, since three notes of those denominations are necessary to amount in the aggregate to $20.
The evidence showed that, while a confederate held the owner, the accused took from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wakeford
...v. McCormack, 8 Or. 236 (1880); State v. Williams, 29 Tenn. 101 (1849); Quitzow v. State, 1 Tex.Cr.App. 47 (1876); Holly v. Commonwealth, 113 Va. 769, 75 S.E. 88 (1912). See also 52A C.J.S., Larceny, Sec. 53, p. 479; 50 Am.Jur.2d, Larceny, Sec. 3, p. 154. See fn. 8.8 P. 75. See People v. He......
-
Schwartz v. Com.
...1 (1981)). In Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 557 S.E.2d 227 (2002), the Supreme Court of Virginia noted: In Holly's Case, [113 Va. 769, 75 S.E. 88 (1912),] we stated the following rule: "The theft of several articles at one and the same time constitutes an indivisible offense, and a ......
-
Darnell v. Com., 1683-89-2
...or acquittal of any one or more of them is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the larceny of the others. Holly v. Commonwealth, 113 Va. 769, 772, 75 S.E. 88, 89 (1912). However, "the rule applies only to a case involving multiple larceny prosecutions predicated upon the theft of multiple......
-
Stephens v. Com., Record No. 010852.
...constituted "separate and distinct acts performed at separate times." The defendant also argues that our decision in Holly's Case, 113 Va. 769, 75 S.E. 88 (1912), supports his contention that his acts of firing a pistol constitute a single violation of Code §§ 18.2-154 and -286.1. We In Hol......