State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 21 December 1896 |
| Citation | 119 N.C. 811,26 S.E. 148 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. HARRIS. |
Larceny — Statutory Indictment — Negativing Exceptions—Matter of Defense.
1. Under Act 1895, c. 285, it is not necessary that an indictment for the larceny of a sum less than $20 should charge the taking from the person or from a dwelling house in the daytime.
2. The general rule as to the form of statutory indictments is that it is not requisite, where they are drawn under one section of the act, to negative an exception contained in a subsequent distinct section of the same statute.
3. On a trial for larceny in the superior court, the fact that the amount stolen was less than $20, and that the taking was neither from the person nor a dwelling house, is matter of defense, which it is incumbent on defendant to show in diminution of the sentence. The consequences of the conviction of the felony are in all respects the same, except that the law has given him the opportunity to ask for a smaller punishment when certain facts appear.
Appeal from superior court, Guilford county; McIver, Judge.
Mary Harris was indicted for highway robbery alleged to have been committed by snatching a purse from the hand of the prosecuting witness. When the evidence was closed, the solicitor for the state abandoned the action for highway robbery, but stated to the court he would insist upon a verdict for larceny. The court charged the jury that, the state having abandoned the charge of robbery, they would consider the question of larceny only; and if, upon consideration of all the evidence, they had a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, they would render a verdict of not guilty; otherwise they would render a verdict of guilty. The jury returned the verdict, "We find the defendant guilty." Motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled, and the court sentenced defendant to imprisonment in the state prison for a term of two years, to which judgment and sentence defendant excepted, and appealed. Among others, defendant assigned as errors the following: Affirmed.
A. B. Andrews, Jr., and W. L. Watson, for appellant.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Benfield, 19
...larceny was not from the person; and (3) the larceny was not from the dwelling by breaking and entering in the daytime. State v. Harris, 119 N.C. 811, 814, 26 S.E. 148. These matters were not considered essential ingredients of the crime of larceny but were matters 'in amelioration of the p......
-
In Re Holley.
...of doubt the jury shall, in the verdict, fix the value of the property stolen." Construing the last section, the court In State v. Harris, 119 N. C. 811, 26 S. E. 148, held as follows: "(1) The act of 1895, c 285, does not make it necessary that an indictment for the larceny of a sum less t......
-
State v. Massey, 259
...to show diminution of sentence under P.L.1895, Chapter 285, or G.S. § 14--72. State v. Bynum, 117 N.C. 749, 23 S.E. 218; State v. Harris, 119 N.C. 811, 26 S.E. 148. However, later cases hold that in order for the State to convict of the felony of larceny (except in those instances where G.S......
-
In re Holley
... ... over the proceedings of the inferior courts." This has ... been expressly held with us in several decisions, as in ... State v. Herndon, 107 N.C. 934, 12 S.E. 268, ... State v. Miller, 97 N.C. 451, 1 S.E. 776, and ... State v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522, and the procedure in ... value of the property stolen." ... Construing ... the last section, the court in State v. Harris, 119 ... N.C. 811, 26 S.E. 148, held as follows: "(1) The act of ... 1895, c. 285, does not make it necessary that an indictment ... for the ... ...