State v. Ramelsburg
| Decision Date | 31 March 1860 |
| Citation | 30 Mo. 26 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. RAMELSBURG, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Stealing committed in a dwelling-house is grand larceny irrespective of the value of the property stolen, and may be punished as such under the thirty-second section of the third article of the act concerning crimes and punishments. (R. C. 1855, p. 577.)
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
This cause was submitted to the jury upon the following among other instructions:
Wingate, for appellant.
Mauro, (circuit attorney,) for the State.
I. Larceny committed in a dwelling-house is grand larceny without regard to the value of the article stolen. The section specifies no other punishment than imprisonment in the penitentiary. “May” is to be construed as “must or shall.” (Sedw. on Stat. Law, 438; 9 Part. 390; 1 Pet. 64; 9 How. 248; 4 Gilm. 29; 7 Ind. 122.)
The defendant was arraigned on an indictment for stealing in a dwelling-house. He was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary.
The question raised on the trial was, whether, if personal property of less value than ten dollars is stolen in a dwelling-house, the thief can be convicted under the thirty-second section of the third article of the act concerning crimes and their punishments, which provides that if any larceny be committed in a dwelling-house, or in any boat or vessel, or by stealing from the person in the night time, the offender may be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten years. The twenty-fifth section of the same article makes the stealing of personal property of the value of ten dollars and more grand larceny, which is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The thirty-first section, which immediately precedes that under which the defendant was tried, makes stealing of personal property under the value of ten dollars petit larceny, an offence punishable by fine and imprisonment in the county jail.
As the section under which this indictment was framed immediately follows that defining petit larceny, and as the statute declares that if “any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Riley
...The value was, therefore, immaterial, and the instruction properly refused on this account if no other. R. S. 1879, sec. 1309; State v. Ramelsburg, 30 Mo. 26; v. Smith, 30 Mo. 114. Defendant also asked the following, upon the refusal of which error is predicated: "1. The court instructs the......
-
State v. Sharp
... ... assigned for any objection to the evidence, and the objection ... made cannot be considered. State v. Brown, 95 Mo ... 19; State v. Gilmore, 85 Mo. 554. (4) The ... instructions properly declared the law as to larceny in a ... railroad car. R. S. 1879, sec. 1309; State v ... Ramelsburg, 30 Mo. 26; State v. Brown, 75 Mo ... 317; State v. Kennedy, 88 Mo. 341. (5) It will be ... presumed that the trial court, in refusing defendant's ... demurrer to the evidence, found that the variance claimed ... between the allegations in the indictment and the evidence as ... to the ... ...
-
State v. Scott
... ... (2) The instructions properly declared the law, ... and the conviction was proper, for if there was a larceny ... committed at all it was a larceny in a dwelling-house, and ... grand larceny, irrespective of the value of the property ... stolen. R. S. 1889, sec. 3537; State v. Ramelsburg, ... 30 Mo. 26; State v. Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297; ... State v. Brown, 75 Mo. 317; State v ... Kennedy, 88 Mo. 341. (3) There is nothing to show that ... the juror, J. D. McCutcheon, was incapacitated, by reason of ... sickness, from understanding the evidence and the argument in ... the ... ...
-
The State v. Patterson
...number one and two properly declared the law as to grand larceny and larceny in a dwelling house. R. S. 1879, secs. 1308, 1309; State v. Ramelsburg, 30 Mo. 26; State v. Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297; State Brown, 75 Mo. 317; State v. Kennedy, 88 Mo. 341. Sherwood, J. Barclay, J. dissents. OPINION......