State v. Murry
| Decision Date | 24 March 1881 |
| Citation | 8 N.W. 350,55 Iowa 530 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. MURRY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Iowa district court.
The defendant was indicted for the crime of larceny, in stealing an overcoat of the alleged value of $35. He pleaded he had been convicted for the larceny of the same overcoat before a justice of the peace, and punished therefor. To this plea the state demurred on the grounds--“ First, that the former conviction, being for a minor offence, cannot be pleaded in bar of the offence charged in the indictment; second, that the offence charged in the indictment is a felony, and punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, while the former, the conviction for which is pleaded in bar, is a simple misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in the county jail, or by fine only, and cannot be here pleaded.” The demurrer was overruled, and the state appeals.J. F. McJunkin, Att'y Gen., and M. P. Smith, Dist. Att'y, for the State.
No appearance for appellee.
The attorney general does not claim that a person may be punished twice for the same offence, but he insists there are degrees in larceny, and that a conviction for the lower will not bar the higher; that the former cannot include the latter, but that the latter does include the former, and The State v. Foster, 33 Iowa, 565, is relied on. All that was held in that case was, when an offence consists of different degrees, a conviction for the lesser will not bar a prosecution for the greater. We have no occasion to either affirm or overrule that case. It is also insisted the question now before us was determined in favor of the state in The State v. Woods, 46 Iowa, 116. This is a mistake. The point determined in that case was that on the trial of an indictment for larceny an instruction that the value of the property should be determined by a fair preponderance of the evidence, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, was erroneous. We adhere to that ruling. In discussing the question then before the court, language was used from which the inference is drawn that it was held there were degrees in larceny. In one sense this is true; in another, not. So far as the extent of the punishment is concerned it was not inaccurate to say there were degrees therein, or in larceny; that is, grand larceny is a felony, and petit larceny a msidemeanor, and the commission of either is punished accordingly. The value of the property stolen alone determines whether the offence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial