State v. Taunt

• Decision Date: 01 January 1871
• Citation: 16 Minn. 99
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA v. ALVIN B. TAUNT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 99

16 Minn. 99

STATE OF MINNESOTA

v. ALVIN B. TAUNT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court, Hennepin county, denying a new trial.

A. H. Young, for appellant.

F. R. E. Cornell, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

RIPLEY, C. J.

The indictment charges that the defendant "did steal, take, and carry away divers and sundry genuine and current treasury notes of different denominations, issued by the treasury department of the United States, and divers and sundry genuine and current bank-notes of different denominations, issued by different and sundry national banks, organized under the laws of the United States, all of which treasury notes and bank-notes amounted to the sum of, and were of the value of, $250, and were the property of one Joseph Smythyman; a more particular description of which treasury notes and bank-notes, or of any or either of them, is to the said grand jury unknown." This, we think, is clearly sufficient. Com. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142.

"When the substance of the offense is set out, the jurors may omit a matter of description which they cannot ascertain. If this were not so, there would often be a failure of justice. In the case of the stealing of a considerable parcel of bank-notes, * * * it would frequently, and perhaps generally, happen that the owner would not be able to specify the different kinds of notes. The description of them as bank-notes, together with a statement of the ownership, with an averment that a more particular description cannot be given, sufficiently identifies the offense to guard the prisoner against the danger of another prosecution for the same offense." Haskins v. People, 16 N. Y. 344.

We are not, however, to be understood that the indictment would be insufficient without such averment of inability to give a more particular description. We have been referred to the case of State v. Hinckley, 4 Minn. 345, (Gil. 261,) in which an indictment for the larceny of "divers banknotes, amounting in the whole to $500, and of the value of $500," was held insufficient; neither the number, denomination, nor the bank by which issued, nor that they were genuine or current, being stated. But that case does not decide, or profess to decide, that an indictment must specify all these, and the weight of authority is that such an allegation as the one before us is sufficient.

In Com. v. Richards, 1 Mass. 336, an indictment for stealing "one bank note of the value of $10, of the goods and chattels" of A. B., was held good, and Larned v. Com. 12 Metc. 240, strongly sustains the following form, namely, "divers bank-bills, amounting in the whole to $1,700, and of the value of $1,700, of the goods and chattels," etc., which is as general as that in State v. Hinckley.

It is true that in Low v. People, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 37, "$60 in bank-bills, current money, of the value of $60," was held bad for want of an allegation of the number of such bills, though a statement of the bank by which owned, and the denomination of each, were not thought necessary. But, in respect to number, the indictment, it was said, should be certain. The alleged reason is, that "it is part of the description applicable to chattels;" which, it seems to us, is not so good a reason for holding that it should not be omitted, as that given by the supreme court of Massachusetts in the case above cited is, for holding that it need not be inserted.

In Com. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142, the objection of uncertainty in respect to such an indictment, and its effect in depriving the party of the privilege of pleading it in bar against a second indictment, is thought to be rather specious than real. With reference to the want of an allegation of number, the court observes that "the number may be stated much larger than appears in proof, and yet no substantial variance. * * * Where the articles are of one class, or of the same kind, stating the number of the articles, aids little in identifying the particular offense charged. The second indictment may be for a smaller number, and therefore it may be necessary to resort to oral evidence to identify the larceny as the same that has been previously charged. If the previous indictment is general in its statement in such case, upon a plea of former conviction or acquittal being pleaded to a subsequent indictment, the case would be open to oral evidence to identify the larceny charged in the former case." See, also, Com. v. Duffy, 11 Cush. 145.

In Com. v. Stebbins, 8 Gray, 492, the court, following these precedents, expressly decided that an indictment for stealing bank-bills, which states the amount and value of the whole, need not describe their number or denomination. The allegation there was, "sundry bank-bills, current within said commonwealth, amounting to the sum of $210, and of the value of $210."

The intention of the legislature was (as is stated in State v. Hinckley) "to simplify the proceedings in criminal as well as civil actions, and do away with the technicalities and repetitions which had obtained, and been more or less held necessary, under the former practice." Such an intention would seem best carried out by following the precedent set in Massachusetts.

The defendant's second objection, viz., that the alleged failure in the description became inexcusable, upon the state's proving that the bills were returned the day after the...