State v. Waller, 22042
| Decision Date | 14 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22042,22042 |
| Citation | 312 S.E.2d 552,280 S.C. 300 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Gregory Allen WALLER, Appellant. |
Public Defender William Edward Mullineaux, Appellate Defender John L. Sweeny, Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, both of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Staff Atty. Carlisle Roberts, Jr., and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant Gregory Allen Waller was convicted of housebreaking and grand larceny and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Waller appeals his grand larceny conviction. The issue on appeal is whether the larceny of property from different owners at the same time and at the same place constitutes one or several larcenies. We affirm.
Waller forcibly entered an apartment occupied by three roommates and took property belonging to each. The property was never recovered. At trial, each roommate estimated the value of the items taken. Waller concedes the aggregate value of the property exceeded Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, the statutory minimum to sustain a conviction of grand larceny. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-30 (Cum.Supp.1982). However, Waller argues the value of property taken from more than one owner cannot be aggregated so as to sustain a conviction of grand larceny should the value of property taken from each owner be less than Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, and he argues the testimony presented at trial is insufficient to show the value of property taken from any of the three roommates equals Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. 1
South Carolina has been described as having an intermediate doctrine which leans toward the minority view of treating such offenses as separate offenses but without adopting the minority view in unqualified terms. See Annot., 28 A.L.R.2d 1182, 1189 (1953).
State v. Thurston, 27 S.C.L. (2 McMul.) 382 (1842) and State v. Holland, 39 S.C.L. (5 Rich.) 512 (1852) suggest a prosecutor in this situation may elect to prosecute for one larceny or for several larcenies. Thus, the State could properly aggregate the value of property taken from different owners and prosecute an accused for one larceny rather than several. We therefore affirm Waller's conviction for grand larceny.
The vast majority of cases considering this issue hold that the larceny of property from different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Donovan
...(1975); People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137, 142-143, 36 N.E.2d 84 (1941); State v. Jager, 85 N.W.2d 240, 243 (N.D.1957); State v. Waller, 280 S.C. 300, 301, 312 S.E.2d 552 (1984); State v. Hall, 298 S.E.2d 246, 256 Our result is also consistent with analogous cases interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1......
-
State v. Jerrome
...a victim, but belonging to different owners, at the same time and the same place, constitutes but one larceny.”); State v. Waller, 280 S.C. 300, 312 S.E.2d 552, 553 (1984) (“The vast majority of cases considering this issue hold that the larceny of property from different owners at the same......
-
Dyson v. State
...people on a single evening for a single period of time by placing a phony night deposit box on the wall of a bank); State v. Waller, 280 S.C. 300, 301, 312 S.E.2d 552 (1984) (single larceny when defendant broke into apartment and stole property belonging to three different people); State v.......
-
State v. Jones
...THREE COUNTS OF ARMED ROBBERY Jones was separately indicted for the armed robbery of each victim. He contends, citing State v. Waller, 280 S.C. 300, 312 S.E.2d 552 (1984), the three counts should have been "rolled into a single count" as the goods were taken from three victims simultaneousl......