State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 27 March 1905 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court Harney, County; Morton D. Clifford Judge.
R.E Clark and another were convicted of larceny, and appeal. Affirmed.
Dan J. Malarkey, for appellants.
J.W McCulloch and A.M. Crawford, for the State.
The defendants were convicted of the crime of larceny. They appeal, assigning as error the overruling of a demurrer to the indictment on the ground that more than one crime is charged therein. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: "That the said R.E. Clark and John Lee Milam on the 14th day of June A.D.1903, in the county of Harney and state of Oregon, then and there being, and acting together did then and there wrongfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and ride away and drive away and lead away one mare and two geldings, said mare and one of said geldings being then and there the personal property of Frank Miller and said mare being of the value of $150.00 and said gelding being of the value of $125.00 and the other said gelding then and there being the personal property of one Harrison Kelly and of the value of $100.00, contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Oregon." It is argued that the indictment charged two distinct offenses--one, the larceny of the property of Miller; and the other,the larceny of the property of Kelly--without alleging that they were committed at the same time and place. It is elementary that an indictment must charge but one crime. B. & C. Comp. § 1308. But a person by a single act may accomplish two or more criminal results, or perhaps more accurately speaking, one offense may be committed at one time and place to the injury of two or more persons. Woodford v. People, 62 N.Y. 117, 20 Am.Rep. 464; People v. Milne, 60 Cal. 71. It is therefore held by the weight of authority that the stealing of articles belonging to two or more persons at the same time and place constitutes but one offense, and may be so charged in an indictment. Rapalje, Larceny, § 117; State v. Magone, 33 Or. 570, 56 P. 648; Ben v. State, 22 Ala. 9, 58 Am.Dec. 234; People v. Johnson, 81 Mich. 573, 45 N.W. 1119; State v. Nelson, 29 Me. 329; Lorton v. State, 7 Mo. 55, 37 Am.Dec. 179; State v. Hennessey, 23 Ohio St. 339, 13 Am.Rep. 253; Fulmer v. Commonwealth, 97 Pa. 503; Hoiles v. United States, 3 McArthur, 370, 36 Am.Rep. 106. It must be alleged, however, that the larcenies were committed at the same time and place. There is no presumption that, because they are charged to have been committed on the same day and in the same county, they constitute a single crime. Joslyn v. State, 128 Ind. 160, 27 N.E. 492, 25 Am.St.Rep. 425; State v. Bliss, 27 Wash. 463, 68 P. 87.
The indictment in this case, we think, sufficiently complies with the rule, by alleging that the articles belonging to the persons named were, as a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cloutier
...236 (1880) (larceny of a horse and tack at the same time and place held "but one crime" for purposes of double jeopardy); State v. Clark, 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101 (1905) (theft of property of several persons at one time and place held but one offense for purposes of charge in a single indictme......
-
State v. Laundy
...and malt liquors might have been mixed, so as to constitute but one violation of the provisions of the ordinance." In State v. Clark, 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101, indictment alleged that the defendants did "take, steal, and ride away and drive away and lead away one mare and two geldings, said ma......
-
State v. Haji
...he argues, considered a demurrer on the basis of duplicity—charging multiple crimes—to be an error in substance. See State v. Clark , 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101 (1905) ; State v. Hinkle , 33 Or. 93, 54 P. 155 (1898) ; State of Oregon v. Carr , 6 Or. 133 (1876). Building on that reading of Clark ......
-
State v. Warren
...the indictment that the indictment charged only one offense; if it was not, the demurrer had to be allowed. On that point, State v. Clark , 46 Or. 140, 80 P. 101 (1905), is illustrative.In Clark , the defendant was charged with stealing three horses, one belonging to one person and the othe......