State v. Baker

• Decision Date: 05 October 1927
• Citation: 138 A. 736
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. BAKER.

138 A. 736

STATE

v. BAKER.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Windsor.

Oct. 5, 1927.

Exceptions from Windsor County Court; Frank L. Thompson, Judge.

Cora Baker, alias Cora Bland, alias Cora Drewe, was convicted of grand larceny, and she brings exceptions. Judgment reversed, sentence set aside, and cause remanded, with instructions.

The information of one count charges the respondent with the larceny, on, to wit, the 3d day of September, 1926, at Bridgewater, in the county of Windsor, of "three gray navy woolen blankets, manufactured by the Bridgewater Woolen Company, one green and brown plaid blanket, being a Beacon blanket, one aluminum coffee percolator, a quantity of canned goods, a quantity of towels, a quantity of knives and spoons, and two candlesticks, all of the value of, to wit, $50, of the goods and chattels of Tony Sabatino, then and there being found," etc.

A general verdict of guilty of grand larceny was returned, and the respondent seasonably filed a motion in arrest of judgment. The motion was overruled, and judgment on the verdict was rendered, to each of which respondent excepted. Thereupon respondent was sentenced to be confined at hard labor in the State's Prison for women at Rutland for the term of not less than 1 year and 3 months, nor more than 2 years, and to pay costs. Mittimus was issued, and respondent is in execution.

The grounds of the motion are that the complaint is insufficient to support a judgment, in that it is uncertain, indefinite, did not enable her (respondent) to make intelligent preparation for defense, nor to plead her conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense; that the complaint does not state the value of any item of property alleged to have been stolen, nor sufficiently describe any article, nor describe the percolator mentioned, nor state the kind, number, or other description of canned goods, towels, knives, and spoons alleged to have been stolen.

Argued before WATSON, C. J., and POWERS, SLACK, FISH, and MOULTON, JJ.

Robert R. Twitchell, State's Attorney, of Woodstock, for the State.

Hugh Moore, of White River Junction, for respondent.

WATSON, C. J. The only questions presented for our consideration arise upon the motion in arrest.

The allegations of the information being to the effect that the numerous distinct articles of property, described or attempted to be described as stolen, were all owned by the same person, were in the same place, were all taken at one and the same time, and were all of the value of $50, such taking was but a single offense of larceny. State v. Cameron, 40 Vt. 555; State v. Newton, 42 Vt. 537; State v. Emery, 68 Vt. 109, 34 A. 432. 54 Am. St. Rep. 878.

At common law simple larceny or theft was of two kinds, viz., grand larceny, when the value of the goods taken was above a certain sum, and petit larceny, when the value was not above that sum. The nature of the offense was the same in both, but the degree of punishment differed. 1 Hale P. C. 503. And in this state the same division of the crime is fixed on a similar basis by statute. Formerly when the goods taken exceeded in value the sum of $7 the offense was of the former class, and when the value did not exceed that sum the offense was of the latter class. State v. Bean, 74 Vt. 111, 52 A. 269. More recently the statute was so amended in this respect as to fix the grades of the crime and the punishment on the basis of the distinctive value of the property stolen being in excess of $25. G. L. 6862-6863.

Hence it necessarily follows that, since under our law the grades of larceny and the degree of punishment are made to depend on the value of the property stolen, it is essential that the value be stated in the indictment or information charging the offense. And this may be done when the larceny charged is of numerous specific articles all of which are well laid, at the same time and place, by simply stating in the indictment or information the aggregate value of the whole. 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 714. However, Mr. Bishop says:

"The ordinary and practically best form of the allegation is to add the value to each specific article; or, what is the same thing, to say, if there are several articles of a kind, so many, each of the value of so much. Then, if any one is inadequately laid, or is adjudged not to be the subject of larceny, or is not proved, the averment as to it alone may be rejected; or, if the jury do not deem the value of each to be as alleged, they may diminish any one or all in their findings; and, in any case, the proceeding will be sustained." 17 R. C. L. 59, 60; Hope v. Commonwealth, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 134; State v. Brew, 4 Wash. 95, 29 P. 762, 31 Am. St. Rep. 904; Thompson v. State, 43 Tex. 271.

The importance of what is said in the foregoing passage from Bishop more particularly appears in our discussion of the question presented, whether the information sufficiently describes the several articles of property alleged as stolen. The verdict was general, and as broad as the offense charged.

In State v. Villa, 92 Vt. 121, 102 A. 935, the same legal question was raised on exception to the overruling of a motion in arrest, for that the complaint was uncertain, insufficient and indefinite and did not legally inform the respondent of the causes and nature of the accusation against her.

The question was there considered and determined on the basis of the constitutional right of a respondent in that respect when a charge is brought against him. The court states the organic requirement as follows:

"Reasonable certainty in the statement of the crime suffices. All that is required is that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense the accused is charged with, and will enable him to make intelligent preparation for his defense, and, if the trial goes against him, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense."

It was further there held that the essential elements of these three branches of the requirement must be found in the formal accusation to which the accused is called upon to plead, unaided by extrinsic facts; and that if the accusation is legally inadequate, it cannot be made sufficient even by a specification or bill of particulars.

The four blankets alleged as stolen are described as "three gray navy woolen blankets, manufactured by the Bridgewater Woolen Company, one green and brown plaid blanket, being a Beacon blanket." We think these descriptions are made with reasonable certainty, and meet...