State v. Robertson
Decision Date | 18 May 1896 |
Docket Number | 12,118 |
Citation | 20 So. 166,48 La.Ann. 1024 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. FLEMING ROBERTSON |
Submitted May 9, 1896
APPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. Voorhies, J..
M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and R. F. Broussard, District Attorney (P. A. Simmons, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff Appellee.
A. & Chas. Fontelieu, for Defendant, Appellant.
The defendant was indicted for the perpetration of the crime of burglary and larceny, committed in a dwelling house and having been convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the State Penitentiary for a period of eighteen months, he prosecutes this appeal, relying upon a single bill of exception taken to the charge of the trial judge.
Among other things, the judge stated in his charge to the jury that they could find the three following verdicts, viz.: (1) Guilty as charged; (2) Guilty of larceny; (3) Not guilty; and the defendant, by counsel, excepted that under the indictment he could not be convicted of larceny, and his charge was erroneous.
There is but one count in the indictment, and it charges that the defendant did, in the night-time, with force and arms, a certain dwelling house feloniously and burglariously break and enter, with the intent to steal the goods and chattels of one Rogers Wadden, then and there situated; and that he did take, steal and carry away the goods and chattels described as being situated therein.
The statute declares that "whoever, with intent to kill, rob, steal, etc., shall, in the night-time, break and enter a dwelling house, on conviction shall be imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding fourteen years." Revised Statutes, Sec. 851.
Other sections of the Statutes are quite similar; but neither of them denounces the crime of larceny, or makes any provision for its punishment; this is covered by a different section altogether. Revised Statutes, Sec. 812.
Neither are the two crimes of the same generic class.
In State vs. Alfred Ford, 30 An. 311, the question here presented was examined and decided in favor of the defendant, the court saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial