State v. Lewis, No. 10576
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | RILEY |
| Citation | 77 S.E.2d 606,138 W.Va. 743 |
| Docket Number | No. 10576 |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1953 |
| Parties | STATE, v. LEWIS. |
Page 606
v.
LEWIS.
Decided Sept. 29, 1953.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
An indictment for the offense of grand larceny substantially in the form prescribed by Code, 62-9-10, which charges that 'on the ___ day of _____, 1953,' the defendant 'feloniously did steal, and carry away,' the goods, effects and property of a named owner of the value of $75, sufficiently charges that the crime charged in the indictment was committed prior to the finding and return of the indictment.
John G. Fox, Atty. Gen., Arden J. Curry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
RILEY, Judge.
In this criminal proceeding of State of West Virginia against Hubert Lewis, the State of West Virginia prosecutes this writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit [138 W.Va. 744] Court of Pocahontas County, which sustained defendant's motion to quash the indictment and ordered that the indictment be quashed and dismissed, and that the defendant be released from custody, to go without day.
On March 10, 1953, the Grand Jury of Pocahontas County indicted the defendant for the larceny of a certain tweed overcoat of the value of seventy-five dollars. The indictment read:
'State of West Virginia,
'County of Pocahontas, to-wit,
'The Grand Jurors of the State of West Virginia, in and for the body of the County of Pocahontas, and now attending said court, upon their oaths present that Hubert Lewis on the ..... day of .........., 1953, in the said County of Pocahontas, one tweed overcoat of the value of $75,00, of the goods, effects and property of Robert Johnson, feloniously did steal, and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the State.
'Found upon the testimony of Stanley Wooddell, and others, duly sworn in open court to testify the truth, and sent before the Grand Jury, this 10th day of March, 1953.
'(Signed) George S. Sharp,
'Prosecuting Attorney.'
Upon being arraigned the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and thereafter, on
Page 607
March 18, 1953, the defendant, by his counsel, moved the trial court for permission to withdraw the plea of not guilty, entered on the former day, which motion was granted. Defendant then moved the court to quash and dismiss the indictment on the ground that the indictment did not show on its face that the larceny complained of was committed before the finding and return of the indictment of the grand jury.The State of West Virginia assigns as its only ground of error that the circuit court erred in quashing and dismissing the indictment upon the ground that the indictment[138 W.Va. 745] did not on its face show that the larceny therein charged was committed before the date on which the grand jury found and returned the indictment.
Code, 62-2-10, the statute controlling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Toney v. Mills, No. 11053
...* * *'. 27 Am.Jur., Indictments and Informations, Section 70. See 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 123. In State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606, 607, the indictment charging the defendant with having committed grand larceny 'on the ___ day of _____, 1953', was held sufficien......
-
State v. Goodnight, No. 15210
...477, 72 S.E.2d 617, 620 (1952). An indictment for larceny that follows the language of Code, 62-9-10, is sufficient. State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606 (1953). Code, 62-9-10 does not require an indictment to allege the specific place of An indictment for larceny shall be sufficien......
-
State v. Hensler, No. 20210
...believes that this claim by the defendant is without merit. See State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972); State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606 (1953); State v. Pennington, 41 W.Va. 599, 23 S.E. 918 (1896); and Tincher v. Boles, 364 F.2d 497 (4th Lastly, the defendant c......
-
State ex rel. State v. Reed, No. 25356.
...statement, and is cured by the statute. Id., 41 W.Va. at 601, 23 S.E. at 919 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Accord State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 746, 77 S.E.2d 606, 607 This Court again construed W. Va. Code § 62-2-10 in State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972). The de......
-
State ex rel. Toney v. Mills, No. 11053
...* * *'. 27 Am.Jur., Indictments and Informations, Section 70. See 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 123. In State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606, 607, the indictment charging the defendant with having committed grand larceny 'on the ___ day of _____, 1953', was held sufficien......
-
State v. Goodnight, No. 15210
...477, 72 S.E.2d 617, 620 (1952). An indictment for larceny that follows the language of Code, 62-9-10, is sufficient. State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606 (1953). Code, 62-9-10 does not require an indictment to allege the specific place of An indictment for larceny shall be sufficien......
-
State v. Hensler, No. 20210
...believes that this claim by the defendant is without merit. See State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972); State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 77 S.E.2d 606 (1953); State v. Pennington, 41 W.Va. 599, 23 S.E. 918 (1896); and Tincher v. Boles, 364 F.2d 497 (4th Lastly, the defendant c......
-
State ex rel. State v. Reed, No. 25356.
...statement, and is cured by the statute. Id., 41 W.Va. at 601, 23 S.E. at 919 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Accord State v. Lewis, 138 W.Va. 743, 746, 77 S.E.2d 606, 607 This Court again construed W. Va. Code § 62-2-10 in State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972). The de......