State v. Parry

• Decision Date: 30 November 1896
• Docket Number: 12,289
• Citation: 48 La.Ann. 1483,21 So. 30
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. D. W. PARRY

21 So. 30

48 La.Ann. 1483

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. D. W. PARRY

No. 12,289

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 30, 1896

Submitted November 21, 1896

APPEAL from the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of De Soto. Hall, J..

M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and J. B. Lee, District Attorney, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

H. T Liverman and William Goss, for Defendant, Appellant.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced for stealing two heifers.

The indictment charged that he "did steal, take and carry two heifers," omitting, presumably by oversight, the word "away."

He moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment failed to charge an asportation of the property.

Without contradiction larceny is the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away personal property of another.

It none the less remains true that in an indictment an offence may be charged in words conveying the meaning of the statute.

The defendant is unquestionably charged with taking and carrying away feloniously the goods and chattels of another. The words as used charge an asportation of the property. Mr. Bishop in his work on Criminal Procedure, p. 698, 3d Ed., says:

"'Carry away,' 'lead away' or 'drive away,' are probably unnecessary where the word steal is employed, for it includes their meaning."

The point has not been decided heretofore by this court. We have sought support by reference to decisions of courts in other jurisdictions.

We find that in the State vs. Chambers (2 Green's Report, 308) the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the word "steal" means the felonious taking and carrying away of the goods of another. Again, in the State vs. Mann, 25 Ohio 668, in an indictment for larceny of a sheep, it was charged that the defendant did feloniously steal, take and drive the sheep, without alleging that he drove or carried it "away;" it was held that the indictment sufficiently described the offence, for the reason that the word "steal" implied a carrying away. Lastly, in the United States Digest, New Series, Vol. VII, 1876, p. 516, No. 33, we find "The word steal in an indictment implies a carrying away."

Without expressing any opinion as to whether "steal" is as all-embracing in meaning as stated in the cited authorities we think the indictable offence is clearly and specifically charged. The charge of "asportation" would not be more evident if the word "away" had...