State v. Haynie
Decision Date | 14 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 16582,16582 |
Parties | STATE v. HAYNIE. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
H. C. Miller, Anderson, for appellant. Rufus Fant, Jr., Sol., Anderson, for respondent.
Appellant and another were tried in the Court of General Sessions of Anderson County upon an indictment for robbery. The jury convicted both of grand larceny, and the appellant alone appealed. The only assignment of error relates to the instructions to the jury. Neither appellant nor his co-defendant testified or offered any evidence.
The appeal record contains only the following with respect to the evidence:
The portion of the instructions, to which the single exception relates, was as follows:
The gist of appellant's contention is that the instructions were deficient in that they did not define grand larceny as being the felonious taking or stealing of property. In view of the content and plain meaning of the quoted instructions the complaint of error is manifestly without merit. Appellant was represented by trial counsel who should have requested further definition, if deemed necessary in his client's interest, which we do not think it was. The language used by the trial court was more easily understood by the lay jury than would have been repetition of the word 'felonious' or use of the term 'stealing.'
Grand larceny is not defined by statute in this State but the elements of the crime are well-established by the common law and they were stated with sufficient accuracy and clarity in this case--certainly in the absence of request for elaboration. See the decisions collected under the title of Larceny in 21 S.E.Dig. and pocket parts.
Fair analysis of the instructions shows that they included, as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Parker
...grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal); State v. Haynie, 221 S.C. 45, 47, 68 S.E.2d 628, 629 (1952) ("Grand larceny is not defined by statute in this State, but the elements of the crime are well-established by the co......
-
U.S. v. Walker
...clear that robbery at common law encompassed the same elements as a larceny and included two additional elements."); State v. Haynie, 221 S.C. 45, 68 S.E.2d 628, 629 (1952) ("Grand larceny is not defined by statute in this State but the elements of the crime are well-established by the comm......
- Hodge v. National Fidelity Ins. Co., 16581