State v. Cora Baker, Alias Cora Bland, Alias Cora Drew

• Decision Date: 05 October 1927
• Citation: 138 A. 736,100 Vt. 380
• Parties: STATE v. CORA BAKER, ALIAS CORA BLAND, ALIAS CORA DREW
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

138 A. 736

100 Vt. 380

STATE v. CORA BAKER, ALIAS CORA BLAND, ALIAS CORA DREW

Supreme Court of Vermont

October 5, 1927

May Term, 1927.

INFORMATION for larceny. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1926, Windsor County, Thompson, J presiding. Verdict, guilty of grand larceny, and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed, sentence set aside, and cause remanded with leave to apply for leave to amend the information within a reasonable time; and the information being amended, let a trial do novo be had. If the State fails so to apply, let the judgment on the verdict be arrested. The respondent is discharged from her present imprisonment and remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Windsor County to be by him detained until otherwise ordered by authority of law.

Hugh Moore for the respondent.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, FISH, and MOULTON, JJ.

OPINION

WATSON

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 fifty dollars, 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 seven dollars 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 distinctive value of the property stolen being in excess of twenty-five dollars. 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. The Commonwealth, 50 Mass. 134; State v. Brew, 4 Wash. 95, 29 P. 762, 31 Am. St. Rep. 904; Thompson v. State, 43 Tex. 268.

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 the requirements of the rule. "One aluminum coffee percolator." Although this description may not seem to be with quite the same certainty and definiteness as that of the blankets, we are of opinion it is sufficiently certain and definite reasonably to advise the respondent to that extent of the exact charge against her; and it is not apparent how she could be to any inconvenience in preparing her defense because of inability to understand from the description the precise thing described; nor do we see why she might not well plead her conviction in bar against any future prosecution for the same offense. The case of State v. Parker, 47 Vt. 19, is much in point. There, the description in the indictment of the property stolen was "one feather bed," and it was held...