Powell v. State

• Decision Date: 02 November 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 829,88 Ga. 32
• Parties: Powell v. State.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

13 S.E. 829

88 Ga. 32

Powell

v.State.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 2, 1891.

Larceny—Indictment—Evidence—New Trial.

1. An indictment for larceny from the person which charges that the defendant "did wrong-fully and fraudulently and privately take from the "person of one C. A. Dunwoody, Jr., and without the knowledge of the said Dunwoody, with intent to steal the same, one watch and chain of the value of seventy-five dollars, and the property of the said Dunwoody, " is sufficiently specific in the description of the property stolen. Williams v State, 25 Ind. 150; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 700; Sanders v. State, 86 Ga. 717, 12 S. E. Rep. 1058.

2. Where the indictment charges that the property stolen from the person was of the value of $75, and the jury return a general verdict of guilty, the conviction, under section 4411 of the Code, is one of felony, and not of misdemeanor; and, there being no evidence of the value of the property, the accused is entitled to a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Fulton county, Richard H. Clark, Judge.

Indictment against Thomas Powell for larceny. Defendant was convicted, and brings error. Reversed.

The following is the official report

Powell demurred to the indictment against him, upon the ground that the property charged to have been stolen was not sufficiently described in the indictment. The property was described as "one watch and chain of the value of $75." The demurrer was overruled, and to this he excepted. He was found guilty, and his motion for new trial was overruled, to which also he excepted. In addition to the usual grounds of the motion, that the verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc., it was alleged therein that the court erred in charging: "Larcenyis committed by privately, slyly, stealthily, committing the. larceny upon the person, taking the property in question from the person." It was alleged that this was error, in that the most essential element of larceny from the person was left out, to-wit, "with intent to steal the same." In a note to this ground the court states that by reference to the general charge it would be found that, before charging as excepted to, he gave in full the definition of larceny as in the Code. It was also alleged that a new trial should be granted because the state failed to prove that the watch in question was of any value; that, while it was admitted in evidence without objection, the same was not turned over to the jury, nor did the jury handle...