People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 12 June 1886 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. DAVID MILLER, APPELLANT |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial.
On the trial evidence was introduced which tended to show that the defendant took the property in question under a mistaken belief of title in himself thereto. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Reversed.
Mr David Evans and Mr. A. G. Sutherland, Jr., for the appellant.
The instruction asked by defendant's counsel should have been given. It is an elementary principle that ignorance or mistake in point of fact is in all cases of supposed offense a sufficient excuse: 1 Bishop Cr. Law, sec. 301; 1 Wharton Cr. Law, sec. 884.
In all cases where one in good faith takes another's property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be: 2 Bish. Cr. Law, sec. 851.
In order to convict it was necessary for the jury to find that the intent to steal existed at the time of the taking. No subsequent felonious intent was sufficient. The court's modification of the defendant's request was, therefore erroneous: Wilson v. People, 39 N.Y. 459; People v. Clifford, 14 Nev. 72; Reg. v. Horn, 3 F. & F., 315; Rex. v. Leigh, 2 East P. C., 694; State v. Homes, 57 Am. Dec., 275; Ex parte Kenyon, 5 Dillon, 389; Phelps v. State, 55 Ill. 334; State v. Wood, 46 Iowa 116.
Mr. W. H. Dickson, for the respondent.
The appellant was convicted in the first district court of the offense of grand larceny. But one error is alleged, and that arises upon a refusal of the court to charge the jury as requested. It would seem from the record that the request for instruction was made orally at the conclusion of the charge of the court to the jury. The instruction asked was as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant took this property under color of right, and in good faith, believing it to be his property, there should be a verdict of not guilty, although it may afterwards turn out, and though the jury may believe it to be a fact, that the property belonged to Frederick Bird." This instruction the court refused as asked, and said: "I charge you substantially as requested by counsel, with this exception: that if you find that he afterwards discovered it to be the property of Frederick Bird, and, after knowing that it was Frederick Bird's property, that he still retained it, then, of course, he would be guilty."
While the charge as given by the court is sustained by some of the authorities, (see State v. Ducker, 8 Ore. 394; S. C., 34 Am. Rep. 590, and note,) we think that the court erred, and that the great weight of authority is the other way. It is an elementary principle that ignorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of supposed offense, a sufficient excuse: 1 Bish. Crim. Law, sec. 301; 1 Whart. Crim. Law, sec. 884.
In order to convict of larceny, the jury must be satisfied that the taking of the property was with a felonious intent. It is not sufficient to find that, after the taking, it was converted to the use of the defendant, with a felonious intent. It is necessary to find that the intent to steal existed at the time of the taking. No subsequent felonious intent will suffice: Wilson v. People, 39 N.Y. 459; People v. Clifford 14 Nev. 72; Reg. v. Horn, 3 F. & F. 315; S. C. Jac. Fish. Dig. 3337; Rex. v. Leigh, 2 East P.C. 694; S. C. 57 Am. Dec. 275, and cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rogers
...v. State, 1894, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 621, 25 S.W. 625; Cooper v. Commonwealth, 1901, 110 Ky. 123, 60 S.W. 938, 52 L.R.A. 136; People v. Miller, 1886, 4 Utah 410, 11 P. 514; Territory v. Lee, 1926, 29 Hawaii 30; Sapp v. State, 1946, 157 Fla. 605, 26 So.2d 22 Regina v. Flowers, 16 Q.B. 643 (1886). Se......
-
State v. Shonka, 8205
...v. Barretta, 47 Utah 479, 155 P. 343; State v. Potello, 40 Utah 56, 119 P. 1023; State v. Bruno, 97 Utah 33, 92 P.2d 1103.2 People v. Miller, 4 Utah 410, 11 P. 514; State v. Allen, 56 Utah 37, 189 P. 84.3 State v. Hitesman, 58 Utah 262, 198 P. 769; Jones v. California Packing Corp., Utah, 2......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... ascertaining that another person is the true owner does not ... make it larceny. Rapalje on Larceny and Kindred Offenses, ... § 23; People v. Miller, 4 Utah 410, 11 ... P. 514; Beckham v. State, 100 Ala. 15, 14 ... So. 859; Beatty v. State, 61 Miss. 18; ... Billard v. State, 30 Tex ... ...
-
State v. Allen
...to steal it. That is precisely what the court charged the jury and such has been declared to be the law of this state. In People v. Miller, 4 Utah 410, 11 P. 514, is held that, in order to convict of larceny, the taking must be with a felonious intent, and that the intent to steal must exis......