State v. Utley
| Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
| Citation | 82 N.C. 556 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CHARLES UTLEY. |
INDICTMENT for an Attempt to steal, tried at Fall Term, 1879, of WAKE Superior Court, before Avery, J.
There were two counts in the bill of indictment, and the solicitor not insisting upon the first, the defendant was tried upon the second count, which is as follows: The jurors, &c., present that Charles Utley, on the 23rd of June, 1879, did attempt to commit an offence prohibited by law, to-wit, did attempt to feloniously steal, take and carry away from the dwelling house of one John J. Norris, there situate, the personal goods, chattels and moneys of said Norris, therein contained, by then and there being in said dwelling house, and by ransacking the drawers, chests, bureau and closets in said dwelling house, with intent the personal goods, chattels and moneys of said Norris then and there being, feloniously to steal, take and carry away; but said Utley then and there did fail in the perpetration of the larceny of the personal goods, chattels and moneys of said Norris in the said dwelling house then and there being, and was intercepted and prevented from feloniously stealing, taking and carrying away the personal goods, chattels and moneys of said Norris in the said dwelling house, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the grounds that the bill did not set forth specifically, or with sufficient certainty describe, the personal property which the defendant was charged with attempting to steal, and that the articles should have been described with the same certainty as is required in an indictment for larceny. The court overruled the motion and pronounced judgment, from which the defendant appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. A. M. Lewis, for the defendant .
The defendant was indicted for an attempt to steal, take and carry away from the dwelling house of John J. Norris the goods and chattels and moneys of the said Norris in said house contained, and an appeal being taken from the refusal of the judge to arrest the judgment, it becomes our duty to examine and consider the whole record, and to see whether there be any error in the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment, or any defect otherwise in the bill of indictment not authorizing the court to proceed to judgment.
At common law, an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanor, whether it be such at common law or by statute, is indictable, and to constitute the offence it is essential that there be an intention to commit the particular crime or misdemeanor, and that some act be done directly tending and apparently adapted to its accomplishment. 2 Whar. Cr. Law, §§ 2686, 2694; Roscoe Cr. Ev., 100; 1 Rumel on Crimes, 44, 47.
The indictment in this case contains all the facts which enter into and constitute the offence charged. It alleges an intent to steal, an act done, dictated by the intention and reasonably adapted to effectuate the intent, by an unlawful entrance into the house of Norris, and an examination into the drawers, chests and closets therein, and such as would apparently have resulted in a larceny if not prevented by interruption or some other occurrence independent of the will of the defendant; and therefore as it seems to us, the indictment was legally sufficient, at least in its general frame. But the defendant, in his motion in arrest, makes the point that the bill is bad for uncertainty in this, that it does not specify the particular goods and chattels the defendant had an intent to steal.
In our opinion the offence was complete by a general intent to steal, and by the act of entrance into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chandler
...in an attempted larceny indictment, however, to specify the particular goods and chattels the defendant intended to steal. State v. Utley, 82 N.C. 556 (1880). The offense of attempted larceny is complete where there is a general intent to steal and an act in furtherance thereof, and it is "......
-
People v. Rollino
...441, 9 N.W. 486). (b) An attempt to steal from an empty receptacle (Clark v. State, 86 Tenn. 511, 8 S.W. 145) or an empty house (State v. Utley, 82 N.C. 556). (c) Where defendant shoots into the intended victim's bed, believing he is there, when in fact he is elsewhere (State v. Mitchell, 1......
-
Booth v. State
...441, 9 N.W. 486). (b) An attempt to steal from an empty receptacle. (Clark v. State, 86 Tenn. 511, 8 S.W. 145) or an empty house (State v. Utley, 82 N.C. 556). (c) Where defendant shoots into the intended victim's bed, believing he is there, when in fact he is elsewhere. (State v. Mitchell,......
-
State v. Lopez
...441, 9 N.W. 486). (b) An attempt to steal from an empty receptacle. (Clark v. State, 86 Tenn. 511, 8 S.W. 145) or an empty house (State v. Utley, 82 N.C. 556). (c) Where defendant shoots into the intended victim's bed, believing he is there, when in fact he is elsewhere. (State v. Mitchell,......