Terral v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5319,5319 |
| Citation | 84 Nev. 412,442 P.2d 465 |
| Parties | Coy Gene TERRAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Michael L. Hines and C. R. Tice, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Franklin, Jr., Dist. Atty., and James L. Buchanan, II, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
The controlling question is whether one may be lawfully convicted of the crime of larceny from the person when the property taken was near the victim but not on his person. We hold that the conviction is not authorized and must be set aside.
The record shows that Terral snatched gaming tokens of the value of $250 from a crap table rack immediately in front of the victim who was gambling at the Dunes Casino. For such conduct he was charged with grand larceny and also larceny from the person. The jury acquitted him of grand larceny, but found him guilty of larceny from the person. At a subsequent court hearing Terral was adjudged an habitual criminal and sentenced accordingly. In doing so the court used the conviction of larceny from the person as the third felony conviction. Since that conviction cannot be sustained the finding of habitual criminality and the sentence therefor is also invalid.
The statutory crime of larceny from the person requires that money, property or thing of value be taken 'from the person of another.' 1 The state contends that the quoted phrase should be construed to embrace property taken from the 'presence' of another, citing Banks v. State, 74 Ga.App. 449, 40 S.E.2d 103 (1946), and State v. Kobylasz, 242 Iowa 1161, 47 N.W.2d 167 (1951). We reject this contention and the reasoning of the Banks and Kobylasz cases.
Larceny from the person was first recognized as a crime distinct from simple larceny by the Statute of 8 Elizabeth in the 16th century. It was meant to cover the common crime of pickpocketing, and from the beginning required 'an actual taking from the person; a taking from his presence was not sufficient as it was in robbery.' State v. Chambers, 22 W.Va. 779, 46 Am.Rep. 550, 554 (1883). The crime is not committed if the property is taken from the immediate presence, or constructive control or possession of the owner. People v. McElroy, 116 Cal. 583, 48 P. 718 (1897); Wilder v. State, 30 Ala.App. 107, 1 So.2d 317 (1941); People v. DeVaughn, 63 Cal.App. 513, 218 P. 1020 (1923). Other crimes may be committed in those circumstances, but not the crime of larceny from the person. The statutory words 'from the person' mean precisely that.
It is important to restrict the coverage of NRS 205.270 to pickpockets, purse snatchers, jewel abstracters and the like, since larceny...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith-Anthony
...taken] be in some way actually upon or attached to the person, or carried or held in actual physical possession”); Terral v. State, 84 Nev. 412, 413–414, 442 P.2d 465 (1968) (citation omitted) (explaining that “from the beginning [larceny from the person] required ‘an actual taking from the......
-
Ibarra v. State
...to cover the common crime of pickpocketing, and from the beginning required an actual taking from the person[.]" Terral v. State, 84 Nev. 412, 413-14, 442 P.2d 465, 465 (1968) (quoting State v. Chambers, 22 W. Va. 779 (1883) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The gravaman [sic] of [thi......
-
Com. v. Shamberger
...83, 166 N.W.2d 530 (1968), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 384 Mich. 71, 179 N.W.2d 617 (1970); Terral v. State, 84 Nev. 412, 442 P.2d 465 (1968); State v. Lucero, 28 Utah 2d 61, 498 P.2d 350 (1972). The Illinois Court of Appeals did expand the definition of theft from the......
-
People v. Pierce
...at the time of the theft. See, e.g., People v. Williams, 42 Ill.App.3d 134, 355 N.E.2d 597 (1st Dist. 1976); Terral v. State, 84 Nev. 412, 413-14, 442 P.2d 465, 465-66 (1968). Another line of cases holds that, as long as the property is in the person's possession or within the immediate cus......