State v. Keeland
| Decision Date | 20 December 1886 |
| Citation | 2 S.W. 442,90 Mo. 337 |
| Parties | STATE v. KEELAND. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
The Attorney General, for the State. La Force & Green, for appellant, Keeland.
The defendant was indicted, under section 1309, for stealing certain property and money from the person of one John Lacy in the night-time. The indictment is sufficient under that section, and the evidence which appears in the record supported the charge, except as to the venue of the offense; but, as all the evidence is not copied in the bill of exceptions, it will be presumed the same was proved.
There was some evidence to show that the crime committed was robbery, and not larceny; but this was immaterial under the provisions of section 1810, Rev. St. That section declares that "when, by law, an offense comprises different degrees, an indictment may contain counts for the different degrees of the same offense, or for any of such degrees." Now, robbery is compound larceny, or larceny committed by violence from the person of one put in fear, and it consists, in the main, of larceny and assault; and an indictment for robbery, therefore, contains all the allegations essential in simple larceny, with such added incidents as make the larceny robbery. 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § § 553, 582; 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § § 892, 1156, 1158, 1159; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. § § 1001, 1002.
The articles stolen in this case were over the value of $30, and it is settled in this state that one may be indicted for robbery, and convicted of grand larceny, (State v. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; State v. Brannon, 55 Mo. 63; State v. Pitts, 57 Mo. 85;) and the latter, in the sense in which it is employed in section 1810, is one of the degrees of the former offense; — the word "degrees" not being used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Lasson
... ... he grabbed and fled with the money in controversy, as ... heretofore shown. We are of the opinion that reversible error ... was committed by the court in refusing to instruct the jury, ... as requested by defendant, on grand larceny. [Sec. 3312, R ... S. 1919; State v. Keeland, 90 Mo. 339-40, 2 S.W ... 442; State v. Parker, 262 Mo. 180, 170 S.W. 1121; ... State v. Spivey, 204 S.W. 261.] ... IV ... Appellant assigns as error the action of the trial court in ... permitting counsel for the State, over the repeated ... objections of defendant, ... ...
-
State v. Dimmick
... ... one specifically. The contention is made that the record ... fails to show the venue was proven. There is no merit in this ... contention. It is only when a bill of exceptions shows the ... venue was not proven that this point is available to a ... defendant. [State v. Keeland ... ...
-
the State v. Parker
... ... We shall not ... reverse the same and discharge the defendant, however, since ... it has been held that under an indictment for robbery the ... accused may properly in a proper case, be convicted of ... larceny. [State v. Brannon, 55 Mo. 63; 25 Cyc. 103 ... and cases cited; State v. Keeland, 90 Mo. 337, 2 ... S.W. 442.] Pursuant to the prayer in the appellant's ... brief we will reverse and remand the case for such action as ... the State may be upon the law and the facts advised to take ... Other errors alleged we need not now notice, as they are such ... as will not ... ...
-
State v. Kenyon
...We so held in our original opinion, but appellant assails that ruling as erroneous, citing fourteen cases, including: State v. Keeland, 90 Mo. 337, 2 S.W. 442; State v. Myer, 64 Mo. 190; and State v. Quaite, supra, 20 Mo. App. 405. All these cases concede we must consult the bill of excepti......