State v. Beatty

• Decision Date: 06 December 1886
• Citation: 2 S.W. 215,90 Mo. 143
• Parties: STATE v. BEATTY alias CURLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

2 S.W. 215

90 Mo. 143

STATE v. BEATTY alias CURLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 6, 1886.

LARCENY AND RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS — INDICTMENT — AVERMENT OF VALUE OF GOODS STOLEN — COLLECTIVE VALUE — EVIDENCE.

In an indictment for larceny, it is the better practice to assign a value to each article or separate piece of property stolen; but the indictment may be good where it states only the collective value of the property stolen, and proof of such aggregate value may be received; and an objection that, because there is no evidence that defendant stole some of the articles, and the value proved is only as to the whole, therefore there is no evidence that defendant stole property of the value of $30 or more, is not well taken, as possession of a part justifies the jury in finding a theft of the whole. HENRY, C. J., dissenting.

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county.

Indictment for larceny. Defendant appeals.

The Attorney General, for the State. Jenkins & Clarke, for appellant, Beatty.

BLACK, J.

The indictment charges the defendant with stealing "one overcoat, one vest, one pair of pants, one valise and contents, all of the value of one hundred dollars." The state offered evidence to the effect that the articles were all stolen at the same time from the room of the prosecuting witness, and were of the aggregate value of $100; that the defendant sold the coat, pants, and vest to a pawnbroker, in a day or two after the theft, for $9; that he evaded the officers, when about to be arrested, by running and secreting himself in a house. The defendant objected to the evidence as to the collective value of the property, on the ground that the indictment charged him with stealing several articles, and failed to allege the separate value of each; and, the separate value of each article not having been stated, no evidence of value at all should be received. In continuation of the same objection, defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that the value of each article must be shown, and that it was not sufficient to prove the collective value, which was refused.

It is the general, and by far the better, practice to assign a value to each article or separate piece of property; yet, in several of the states, it is held that, where the verdict of guilty is general, the judgment will not be arrested because the specific value of each article of property alleged to have been stolen is not stated. Clifton v. State, 5 Blackf. 224; State v. Murphy, 8...