State v. Cooper
Decision Date | 28 February 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
Citation | 124 S.E.2d 91,256 N.C. 372 |
Parties | STATE, v. John L. COOPER. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and G. A. Jones, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Hamlin, Potts, Ramsey & Hudson, Brevard, for defendant, appellant.
Defendant was indicted and convicted of the larceny of property of the value of more than $200.00, a felony. There was ample evidence to support the verdict and the verdict supports the judgment. evidence offered by the State tended to show the value of the property allegedly stolen by defendant was more than $200.00. Defendant offered no evidence as to the value of such property.
The court failed to instruct the jury that (1) one of the elements of the crime 'charged in the bill of indictment' was that the stolen property must be of a value in excess of $200.00, and (2) if the value of the property taken did not exceed $200.00, the defendant, if guilty at all, would be guilty only of a misdemeanor. Defendant, based on timely exceptions, assigns as error the court's failure to so charge.
Defendant's said assignments raise questions of frequent recurrence in prosecutions for larceny in our superior courts. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to state what we consider and now hold the correct and applicable rules.
At common law, both grand larceny and petit larceny were felonies. If the value of the goods stolen exceeded twelve pence, the felony was grand larceny, punishable by death. If the value was twelve pence or under, the felony was petit larceny, punishable by whipping or some corporal punishment. 32 Am.Jur., Larceny § 3; 52 C.J.S. Larceny § 60; State v. Andrews (1957), 246 N.C. 561, 566, 99 S.E.2d 745.
The statute now codified as G.S. § 14-70 appears as Section 1075 of [256 N.C. 374] the Code of 1883. It was codified as Section 3500 of the Revisal of 1905 and as Section 4249 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1919. This statute abolished the common law distinctions between grand larceny and petit larceny and provided that the offense of 'felonious stealing' was punishable as petit larceny. Hence, it was held that 'the common lawrule that all persons who participate in a petit larceny, whether present or absent, are indictable and punishable as principals is established law in North Carolina.' State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 752, 76 S.E.2d 42, and cases cited.
The statute now codified as G.S. § 14-71 appears as now written, except as noted below, as Section 56, Chapter 34 of the Revised Code of 1854. It was codified as Section 1074 of the Code of 1883, as Section 3507 of the Revisal of 1905 and as Section 4250 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1919. The crime defined in G.S. § 14-71 (receiving stolen goods), although punishable as larceny, was, until the Act of 1949 (S.L. 1949, Chapter 145), denominated a misdemeanor. By the Act of 1949, the words 'criminal offense' were inserted in lieu of the word 'misdemeanor.'
The statutes now codified as G.S. § 14-70 and § 14-71 were in full force and effect when the Act of 1895 (Public Laws 1895, Chapter 285) was passed. The Act of 1895 is entitled, 'An act to limit the punishment in certain cases of larceny,' and provides: The provisions of the Act of 1895 were codified, without material change, as Section 3506 of the Revisal of 1905.
In State v. Harris (1896), 119 N.C. 811, 26 S.E. 148, the defendant, upon conviction of larceny from the person, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sentence as unlawful on the ground the value of the property stolen was less than $20.00. In affirming the judgment, it was held the Act of 1895 The opinion of Avery, J., includes the following: (Our italics)
In State v. Davidson (1899), 124 N.C. 839, 32 S.E. 957, the defendant, upon conviction on an indictment charging the larceny of property of the value of $1.00, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. It was held that, since the larceny was not from the person or from the dwelling by breaking and entering in the daytime and the alleged value of the property did not exceed $20.00, 'it was erroneous to pass sentence of imprisonment for more than one year.'
In State v. Dixon (1908), 149 N.C. 460, 62 S.E. 615, the defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years. In upholding the judgment, Brown, J., said:
yin State v. Shuford (1910), 152 N.C. 809, 67 S.E. 923, the value of the property did not exceed $20.00. This fact was held immaterial where the larceny was from a dwellinghouse by breaking and entering in the nighttime; and a judgment imposing a prison sentence of three years was upheld.
In re Holley (1910), 154 N.C. 163, 69 S.E. 872, was before this Court on certiorari to review a judgment entered at a habeas corpus hearing. The judgment, which denied the petitioner's application for discharge, was affirmed. The petitioner had been indicted for larceny of property of the value of $10.00 and upon conviction was sentenced to a prison term of five years. In pronouncing judgment, the trial judge found 'that the goods stolen were worth between $250 and $300,' and that the defendant had been convicted in three other criminal cases, including a case of larceny, at the same term, in which judgment was suspended. Decision was based in part on the proviso in Section 3500 of the Revisal of 1905, the statute now codified as G.S. § 14-70. Hoke, J., (later C. J.), refers to State v. Harris, supra, as holding, inter alia, these propositions: The opinion continues:
In State v. Smith (1911), 157 N.C. 578, 585, 72 S.E. 853, 856, Walker, J., refers to In re Holley, supra, and State v. Shuford, supra, as holding 'that, while the statute graded the punishment of larceny according to the value of the stolen goods, it did not create any new offense, and the value of the property taken was not an essential element of the crime, but the provision was inserted in the statute only for the purpose of ameliorating the punishment, if it is whown on the trial by the defendant, or if it otherwise appears, that the goods are of less value than $20.'
Thus, prior to the Act of 1913, discussed below, the larceny of property of any value was a felony; but a defendant was permitted to raise and have determined the issue as to whether the value of the stolen property exceeded $20.00. Upon trial of such issue, it was incumbent on defendant to show the value of the stolen goods did not exceed $20.00 in diminution of the sentence.
The Act of 1913 (Public Laws 1913, Chapter 118) is entitled, 'AN ACT TO MAKE UNIFORM THE CRIME OF LARCENY IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,' and provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gardner
...the turn of the twentieth century. At common law, larceny was a felony regardless of the value of the property stolen. State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E.2d 91 (1962). In 1895, the legislature changed the common law, making larceny of property valued under $20.00 a misdemeanor. However,......
-
State v. Lewis, 250
...was tried on the 1955 indictment. His plea of not guilty put in issue Every essential element of the crime charged. State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 381, 124 S.E.2d 91, 97. The burden was on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, the person on trial, was in fact Jessie B......
-
State v. Brown, 496
...In such a situation the provisions of G.S. § 14-72 have no application. As pointed out by Bobbitt, J. in the case of State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E.2d 91, the General Assembly amended G.S. § 14-72 by inserting after the word 'dwelling' and before the words 'by breaking and entering,......
-
Grimes v. State
...Johnson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 291, 135 So. 592 (1931); State v. Summers, 263 N.C. 517, 139 S.E.2d 627 (1965). See also State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E.2d 91 (1962). The court's instructions in this case clearly advised the jury of the nature of the "two" offenses, the requisite eleme......