State v. Blanchard

• Decision Date: 08 February 1895
• Citation: 39 P. 377,11 Wash. 116
• Parties: STATE v. BLANCHARD.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P. 377

11 Wash. 116

STATE v. BLANCHARD.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 8, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Prosecution by the state of Washington against Nellie Blanchard for larceny. Judgment for defendant, and the state appeals. Reversed.

John F. Miller, Pros. Atty., and A. G. McBride for the State.

ANDERS J.

The information in this case charged that "she, the said Nellie Blanchard, in King county, state of Washington, on the 19th day of March, 1894, three hundred and ten (310) dollars lawful money of the United States, the money and property of Robert De Lancy, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did steal, take, and carry away." To this charge a plea of not guilty was entered. The cause came on regularly for trial, and, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, counsel for the defendant moved the court for an order excluding all testimony, upon the grounds "that the information is not sufficiently specific, and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." The motion was granted and judgment entered conformably thereto, and the state, by its counsel, appealed.

Our statute provides that "in an indictment or information for larceny or embezzlement of money *** it is sufficient to allege the larceny or embezzlement to be of money, without specifying the coin, number, denomination, or kind thereof." Code Proc. § 1253. This statute, by its terms renders a particular description unnecessary when the property alleged to have been stolen is money. But, of course, the thing stolen, whatever it may be, must be alleged to have some value, for otherwise it would not be a subject of larceny at all. And it is stated in the brief of counsel for the appellant that the learned trial judge held the information bad because, in his opinion, it did not allege the value of the $310 therein mentioned. If such was the fact, the court was in error. It seems plain to us that the words "lawful money of the United States" denote value, and that the designation of the denomination, as dollars, is itself a statement of value. If a lawful dollar is not of the value of a dollar, then we have no means whatever of determining the value of money. In our opinion, if the information had charged that the larceny was committed by stealing $310, of the value of $310, it would not have been any more specific and certain as to value than it was as filed, as the phrase "of the value of three hundred and ten dollars" would have been mere surplusage, expressive of nothing not already clearly stated. In the case of State v. King, 37 La. Ann. 91, where the charge was that the accused "feloniously did steal take, and carry away certain money, to wit, the sum of ten dollars, of the goods and money of one John Losch," the court said: "To have charged that the larceny was committed by...